BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God isn't real

I was correcting your definition. When reading your argument I decided to see if all your information was true and so I googled the word real. Furthermore, I found that your definition wasn't correct. You claimed that something can be real without having to exist, Although when I looked it up that wasn't so. What god did I mean then? If you seem to know exactly what my title means and what I meant. Also if I don't mean all gods in general what god are you talking about? Or are you also talking about all gods in general as well. What right did I afford you? If you're a US citizen you've got, Freedom of religion, Assembly, To keep and bear arms, Speech, Press, And protection of those accused of crimes. There are other ones of course but none that would help you out. On top of this, I would like to request one thing from you: One piece of evidence to support that "god" (what ever god you choose) is real.
God isn't real

Oh no, You said you're going off your opponent's argument, You can't have it both way. Real in my worldview is "that which conforms with reality" Abstracts are part of reality. Furthermore, You did not mean all gods in general, But even if you did, Every god is an abstract concept, So they're all real even if they don't exist. Don't blame me because your title was undefined and lazily worded. You said you're going off your opponent's argument, So you afforded me that right.
God isn't real

Premise 1 -- Definitions should be clear and concise. When one uses a vague definition, It is too easy to be misunderstood and can lead to poor conversation. Premise 2 -- Definitions God == The abstract concept of a creator of the cosmos. Real == That which conforms with reality. Premise 3 -- Abstracts. Abstracts do not exist, However, They are real because your thoughts are part of reality. God is an abstract concept. Conclusion = God is real.
Atheism is a Lie

I accept. Thanks to Pro for bringing up such a debate. I hope to clear some misconceptions about this topic. There is nothing false about your first Construct by definition. Everybody listen up, I think we may have lots of misconceptions about the opposing side, me included. Let's start with Construct 2. "Believers claim they have faith God exists", "Believers do not claim to 'know' if God exists." Speak for yourself. Yes, I've seen theists agreeing on "it's just faith", but others claim to "know" God as they have found Him deep within their hearts, more claim everything's existence is evidence of a God and the Bible claims God exists. So yes, some may just put their belief in a category of faith, but a majority of them are convinced that they know God, and they know God exists. Correct me if this is a misconception. Now, for Construct 3. I think this is a really big misconception about atheism. "Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists. Atheists claim to "know" if God exists." No. I'd like some time to elaborate on this. Prof. Richard Dawkins in his book, the God Delusion, constructed a 7 point scale of belief. 1, being total belief there is a God, and 7, total belief there isn't. The thing about this is, Pro, that we atheists base our beliefs on reason and science, which is open to new evidence disproving previous claims. We weigh the new evidence up, and if it's overwhelming and strong enough, then the old claim will be disproved. I can say with good accuracy that most atheists are a 6.5, as with Richard Dawkins, because there is a possibility, we won't deny it, that there is a God, no matter how low the probability is. This is what makes atheists quite open-minded, as to say "we know everything" is what atheists are fighting against. That stance is taken commonly by theists, as stated above. We are against that "we know everything" stance. That's why without adequate evidence we don't imply we know what happened before the Big Bang as theists claim "God" without any evidence. To clear it up, atheists do not disbelieve God. Atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF, NOT DISBELIEF in God. We do not claim we know everything, but we question everything and science is finding out. Our lack of belief comes from the lack of evidence to support the claim, and we don't mindlessly say "there is no God, there is no God." That would be a 7, and that person will be going against a principle atheism fights for; he might as well be a theist, and atheism might as well be a religion. Some examples to help understand: Religion: Hair color. Lack of belief: Bald. Disbelief: Black. Religion: TV channel. Lack of belief: Off. Disbelief: Static. I hope this debunks the common misunderstanding.
Atheism is a Lie

I have yet to recieve a satisfactory rebuttle to this argument. Hopefully, this time around , my opponent will not use critical fallacies one after another in place of his argument. If you do not know what a "fallacy" is, please do not accept this debate. There are no rules in logical debates. The only rule is that you be logical. If you are illogical , or only want to discuss things based on a matter of your own opinion, please do not accept this debate. I present 3 constructs, in which i argue each is a logical truth on its own.. As well as my final conclusion being deduced from the combination of all three constructs. You can attempt to refute any part of my construct, definitions or logic. Just please do so logically. My resolution is "Atheism is a lie." Below is my logical argument supporting my resolution. Belief...assumption of truth with or without evidence Disbelief assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence. Faith. An assertive Belief without valid evidence. Knowing. An assertive belief with valid evidence. Construct 1 Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not. Premise2: to claim to know is to have valid evidence Conclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar. Construct 2 Premise 1: Believers claim they have faith God exists. Premise 2: to have faith is a belief without valid evidence (see defintions) Conclusion: Believers do not claim to "know" if God exists. Construct 3 Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists. Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions) Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists. Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.
Resolved,Highly regulating guns would stop mass shootings from occuring.

Well, since m opponent has failed to post his argument, I ask that you give me the conduct point. When you forfeit a round it is expected that you lose that point. So, please extend all my arguments. As he said in the last argument that he posted he said that in 2012 7 mass shootings occurred. He then said that they were mentally ill in one way or another, which is exactly the point. We should have better mental health laws.
Resolved,Highly regulating guns would stop mass shootings from occuring.

You say that my statistics about gun related deaths are irrelevant, but it proves the fact that even if we were to regulate guns people would still commit murders. In that same study it shows that 16,799 people were killed in a non-firearm homicide. That is roughly 5,000 more people killed not using a firearm. Now, let us go on to what you said about strict psychological tests. There are people I know who, if they went for what the status quo for a psychological test, they would be denied the ability to buy a gun. Now, these people are some of the finest, most controlled, most able to control a gun, and kindest people you will ever meet. These people are never, ever going to commit mass murder, yet they would be denied access to guns to defend themselves under the current status quo for psychological tests.
Resolved,Highly regulating guns would stop mass shootings from occuring.

You have committed so many logical fallacies there but lets continue. For one I believe your statistics about death related gun crime is irrelevant. You asked is highly regulating guns would stop mass shootings from occurring. Yes I added an extra r to occuring because it corrects that mistake. Any the key word in your question is mass shootings. If I am correct 2012 in the US saw 7 mass shootings. All the shooters in the mass shooting were said to have been mentally in in one way or another. I believe that if you do somehow at least impose an individual to undergo strict psychological test before giving him a gun then you have solved the issue with those who want guns to strictly defend themselves or for "sport" and for weeding out those with such disorders and mental health issues. Now I could retaliate with the smear tactics politicians use in debates but instead I would like to point out the relevance of the statistics you produced and how medical malpractice is relevant to this.
Resolved,Highly regulating guns would stop mass shootings from occuring.

First, let me address that my opponent failed to follow the guidelines of the debate. Now, I will address what he actually said. My opponent succeeded in providing a solution for the atrocities, when he pointed out that the people who committed these crimes were loners. If you want to prevent these crimes you must have more mental health laws and, as my opponent stated, a society that is "pure and more close knit". I agree that this would be a good way to help stop those killings. What my opponent has failed to do is to provide solid evidence for gun control. Now let us look at a study done by the FBI. First, according to the FBI study, 11,493 people are killed each year by guns. That is compared to 195,000 that die because of medical malpractice and 529,000 tobacco related deaths. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to follow the guidelines of the debate, not given any evidence for his side. In fact, he has actually given evidence to my side.
Resolved,Highly regulating guns would stop mass shootings from occuring.

Mass shootings tend to be loners who are lashing out at society for whatever reason. They feel rejected by society, that rejection starts as sadness, self pity then ultimately hate. These killers could of been stopped if the society was pure and more close knit. Remember these killers were born innocent. They were mostly emotionally scarred from a young age thus warping their minds making them unstable and unpredictable is such a society like the US have. Yet they can walk into a shop and purchase an automatic weapon. On the outside they seem normal. Maybe they look like pushovers, if it is a kid you go to school with maybe you will join in and call them names because all the cool kids are doing it. If they are an adult perhaps you will be rude to them, bump into them without apologising. Even so one day that guy can turn around and just unleash all that hate. So ultimately yes stricter gun control will help prevent such atrocities. I could go on but the character limit is restric
Abortion

First let's start with woman's rights. You see, may people believe that women have the right to choose what they do with their body. But that doesn't justify abortion at all. First off, if it is a women right, how come they are murdering women? 50% of the babies aborted are women, where are there rights.Second, "My Body, My Choice" would apply to YOUR body, but not a second creature IN your body. Many argue that the baby is still dependent on the mother, thus it is apart of her body. Let me put this into perspective for you; the elderly are dependent on people, should we shoot them because it's "our choice"? No, that seems crazy, but the same concept with the unborn. Abortion is a dangerous process filled with sick workers. The people who work at abortion clinics are not given a good name. The workers at Planned Parenthood have been known for selling baby body parts from the dead babies they abort. The dead babies become incoming cash, Also, another abortion clinic, Tiller"s Abortion Clinic, is founded by Doctor Tiller who does terrible things to the women causing the women great pain, and gives them illegal medicine. But, when sent to court, Dr. Tiller was convicted not guilty. Abortion doctors have women put things in their body such as leeches, gunpowder, salt, illegal drugs, and shots. These are things that potentially kill the women or affect her in a detrimental way. Just last year, 2015, in the month of December, Anna Yocca, 31 years old attempted a self abortion using an untwisted coat hanger. The baby survived, but will have lifelong medical issues. She was charged for attempted murder. Now, when Planned Parenthood does the same thine, attempts to kill a baby, and succeeds, they are not charged with murder. In fact, they are praised, and receive money. What"s the difference? Let me answer that for you: none
The United States should follow Portugal's example and decriminalize all drugs.

Intresting point my friend, but just as I was unclear on what you were saying, so were you.You see, I don't have a problem against rehablilitation.But what I do have a problem with is the decriminalization of drugs in the U.S.You see, people won't go to rehabilitation because the drug is legalized,and nobody cares about it, as you can see in the article I will post below, since Portugal has decriminalized drugs,people that have been seeking rehabilitation has gone down as well. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu...
The United States should follow Portugal's example and decriminalize all drugs.

I"m not trying to say that drugs are not bad and don"t cause major heath issues for those that use them. What I am stating is that I we should decriminalize drugs and not prosecute addicts as criminals. Instead we should focus on rehabbing those individuals. By doing this we can actually curb the issues of having 60% of our prison population being incarcerated for drug offenses. Below is a link to an article I think you would find interesting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
The United States should follow Portugal's example and decriminalize all drugs.

Although I do agree that the U.S's drug policy is flawed,I do not believe outright decriminalization of drugs is necessary. This is due to the fact that,when a country/state legalizes drugs,the amount of people that use it go up,for example,the states in America that smoke the most pot are also the states that have legalized pot as well I will provide a link at the bottom.Although I believe that marijuana should be legalized,for purposes that do not contribute to this debate,this shows us that if we legalize the drug,the drug's usage will go up.Although some drugs are more or less harmless,most aren't,and can do serious damage to yourself.Since marijuana has been legalized in Delaware for example,teens that have used marijuana once in their life went up to %46,compared to the whole of the U.S,it is different by %6,I will provide a link at the bottom.Some effects some drugs do to you,in my example I will be using heroin,obviously show that it gives you horrible negative outcomes.After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours; mental function is clouded; heart function slows; and breathing is also severely slowed, sometimes enough to be life-threatening. Slowed breathing can also lead to coma and permanent brain damage,this is a quote I found online for the usage of heroine,wich I will have a link at the bottom.Thank you for reading my first argument. 1. http://www.cbsnews.com... (states that use marijuana) 2. http://www.drugabuse.gov... (heroin effects) 3. http://recovergateway.org... (more drug usage effects) 4. http://www.hhs.gov... (drug usage/marijuana usage for juniviles in Delaware)
The United States should follow Portugal's example and decriminalize all drugs.

The United States currently has roughly 2.2 million people incarcerated in jails and prisons. Over 50% of this 2.2 Million are serving time because of non-violent drug offenses. Because of the criminalization of drugs the United States now struggles with overcrowding in detention centers, budget issues for maintaining detention centers and enforcement agencies, and a recidivism rate of around 60%. Portugal in 2000 had similar laws to the United States and faced similar issues. This caused the Portuguese government to convene a panel of professionals to come up with a plan that called for the decriminalization of all drugs. They also said to take all the funding used in arresting, trials, and incarceration of drug offenders to be used for rehabilitation, psychological help, and employment assistance. These reforms have now led to a 50% decrease in drug use in the country.
The United States should follow Portugal's example and decriminalize all drugs.

I have enjoyed this debate as well.Your argument leads me to the point I made in the first and second argument, if someone has the option to do drugs with very small consequences for doing so, they will do it.Kind of like how we as small children would steal candy, if I knew my guardians sent me to my room for a day, I wouldn't risk it, but if I knew I'd get a slap on the hand and a stern "don't do it again" I probably would have done it at least once.We both have made some very good points, and my information in the second round was flawed, please disregard it.
The United States should follow Portugal's example and decriminalize all drugs.

Decriminalization of drugs is not making drugs available on the streets so that you can shoot down to your local super market and buy a bottle of Black Tar Heroin. Drug smugglers, manufactures, etc. are not given a green light to do their business. Instead what it means is not treating addicts as criminals. For example now when a person is contacted by law enforcement and found to have drugs in their possession depending on their record and/or the amount found in their possession they are immediately required to receive a mandatory sentence. They are then incarcerated in a local jail for any sentences 2 years or less and Federal or State prisons for anything more. While incarcerated there are minimal rehab programs for these individuals and obviously they can"t work so there is little meaning to their lives and nothing has been to help them overcome their addiction. So now comes recidivism you see the same people (usually of lower economic standing) never actually given a chance to overcome their addiction. As in the case with Portugal after 15 years the country is actually posting that drug use is down by half of what it is. This is not something to make people care about drugs less but to change how people view drugs and the addicts of drugs. Like we have both previously stated drugs are bad and cause a variety of mental and physical health issues. People should be educated as to the affects of drugs and what they can and depending on the drugs will do to you. I also must apologize for not adding more rounds to this debate I would really like to continue this as you have some interesting points.
Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision.

Sorry about the late response, to my arguments.1. It costs more to produce it than it is worth.2. Other countries have done it with success.3. We've gotten rid of coins before.1. It costs more to produce it than it is worth. The cost to produce a penny is approximately 1.83 cents to make, and it is only worth 1 cent. This being so the government loses $55,000,000 doing this transaction. [1] Although this is basically zero compared to the current national debt, it would be a good start in lowering the debt.2. Other countries have done it before.Finland, New Zealand, and Canada have all ceased making one cent pieces for transaction [2]. They have all done this without harm to their economy, and it has gotten easier to make transactions with cash, as prices are rounded to the nearest 5 cents for cash users. (credit users still use one cent numbers, but they don't need pennies). [4]3. We've gotten rid of coins before. We used to have a half-cent piece, but that had lost all of it's value. The dime even is now worth about as much as the half cent was, so it is time to change. [3] [4]Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_coin) [2] http://coincollectingenterprises.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_coin) [4] Video http://www.youtube.com...
The Electoral College Is A Terrible System/Should Be Removed

**How can the electoral College protect the Republic when arguably all presidents who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College (Including 3 Republicans, 1 Democrat, and 1 Democratic-Republican) have done nothing but destroyed the Republic?**Conjecture.** Donald Trump has increased the already absurdly high military budget to 700 billion when that should go to helping the very people he represents, considered starting an unnecessary invasion of Venezuela, insulted North Korean Dictator Kim Jun Un when they were making massive progress in their nuclear development and can easily strike South Korea and Japan by pure irrational-ism, and caused unnecessary damage to relations with other countries** Art of the Deal. You should read it.*(Bush responded poorly to Katrina, created crony capitalism by bailing out the big banks (If I am correct though Obama also did this which I disapprove of) and set no foundation for Barrack Obama to try and fix the country after the crash of 2008, Harrison was supportive of kicking around Indians, didn't support Civil war veterans (And mind you, he was a veteran himself), levied rather high tariffs, and Adams was a supporter of the "Tariff of Abominations". All it has done has given us presidents that perform poorly, and some are considered to be the worst in US history, such as Harrison.**Hs nothing to do with the electoral college.**Even if the word democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution, it can still be amended to include it**But has never happened in real life on planet Earth. Invoking mythological concepts will not help you here.**Still, Trump lost by almost 3 million Votes in the popular vote, and even though those areas did have a majority vote for Trump, that still dwarfs in comparison to the bigger states that really matter. The population of San Francisco is 300,000 more than Wyoming but is just a mere city.**I wonder how he faired with the 5th generation Americans. Probably about 80% .**Okay, just what the heck are you trying to say here?**Importing voters is tyranny. Our founding fathers blocked it from a future monopoly. If only 5th generation Americans could vote, the Democrat Party would never win again or even come close to winning a Presidential election. They were smarter than you think.https://youtu.be...