BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God's Existence

Of course is was always going to be unlikely that we would change each others minds, and mine remains utterly unconvinced by this argument (as with all Cosmological arguments). A seemingly plausible proposition is put forward, but as soon as you scratch beneath the surface, we find Theism retreating behind a veil of mystery. The problem is that we cannot even describe Universal origins in the precise language of Mathematics, let alone the imprecise language of English. I would see no difference between any Cosmological Argument and the flawed logic: 1) any object pushed in its direction of travel accelerates (newtonian physics) 2) a tin of beans is an object 3) a tin of beans travelling at the speed of light, when pushed accelerates 4) it is possible for a tin of beans to travel faster than the speed of light But the argument from contingency is worse than this given the mystery and obviscation involved. We are told that it is OK for a perfect god, to choose to create non-perfection (which would render that god less than perfect). In turn this relies on a timeless god choosing (a process in and of itself requiring time for a timeless entity). We are told that a god is already perfect and therefore has no possiblity of failing to create the Universe for us. What option does this entity have? what choices can it make in order that humans arise? If that entity chooses not to create this exact universe, how can it be perfectly loving? If it had no choice to create the Universe as it is, then in what sense is the Universe contingent anyway (ie if a god is necessary, this Universe must follow axiomatically and also be necessary)? We are told that a timeless god creates via cause and effect again requiring time. That an infinite and timeless god can cross and infinite series of mental thoughts by considering them all at once after self bootstrapping. All of the above is so utterly far from human experience and the common usage of these words, that it renders them meaningless to use in a logical syllogism. Added to this we are faced with question begging on what a GOE is, bare assertions on the attributes of said entity and we are left with a less than convincing argument, which even most modern Theists reject (see Peter van Inwagens refutation on this topic). Despite this, I would like to add that I found my opponent to not only be polite, but also thorough and thoughtful and thank him for re-visiting an interesting argument for the existence of a god. It may not be convincing but it is always worth debating.
Americas Got Talent is better than American Idol

How many main stream artists are from AGT? There are plenty.I have counted none.Do you even watch AGT? Because country singers have won that show, and some opera singers. As from American Idol theres Carrie Underwood, Kelli Pickler, Chris Daughtry, and Kelly Clarkson to name a few.This is true. American Idol has a better career starter for singers as AGT just gives them a million dollars and one show in Vegas.This is not true, after they win the show they go on acting and making more money, the journey just does not end there. This is the group that has won last year, and they are still performing to this day. [http://www.today.com...]This shall conclude my debate and argument.Thank you for debating me my dear friend, it was fun. Also Voters, thank you for taking the time to read this debate and vote, this is verry good of you. Once again thank you.
Americas Got Talent is better than American Idol

To clear it up for people, I'm for the side of Americas Got Talent.I will be debating my friend here, he is on the side of American Idol.1. I will explain why Americas Got Talent is so much better than American Idol. 2. The big difference between Americas Got Talent and American Idol.3. Why Americas Got Talent is the most watched than American Idol.4. Americas Got Talent pays more than American Idol. 5. I will rebutle my opponents argument. 6. Thank my opponent for offering to debate me.7. Voting period. VOTERS! Please vote fairly. Thank you! 1. My explanation of why Americas Got Talent is better than American Idol. Americas Got Talent is a very entertaining show. You never know who will come up on stage. Also, Americas Got Talent has a variety, and people like variety. If all you want to hear is singing, than watch "The Voice". AGT has all types of acts; funny acts, cool acts, dangerous acts; Which people love dangerous acts. AGT also has a very funny announcer, he makes the show so much better. American Idol is all singing, sometimes they dance, but singing gets boring after a while. I used to watch American Idol till I got so bored of the same thing over and over again. I needed something different, something fresh, and something new for my brain and eyes to enjoy watching. Also the X Factor is a lot more popular than American Idol now. Both shows were started by Simon. AGT has not even become unpopular. People come to AGT all over the US. I'm not saying here that American Idol people don't come from all over the country. Also, AGT offers everyone a chance that has a talent to show it off, some people can't sing but they can act, see AGT gives everybody a place to show their talent, and it's a variety. It's also fun to watch different people and their acts, and those people you watch you never thought you would ever encounter in your life time. AGT is just so much better and a lot more entertaining. 2. What is the big difference between Americas Got Talent and American Idol.Americas Got Talent once again is a variety show. Everybody is welcome. On the other hand with American Idol, you got limitations, like if you are a comedian, or a magician you do not have a place in American Idol. There are more judges in AGT than there are in American Idol. The more judges the better. Why that is, is because you will have a lot more critics that will help you to get better, four different views is a lot better than from three different views. 3. Why Americas Got Talent is the most watched than American Idol.As I have mentioned, it's a variety. The more variety the better. People like different things. This sight show that every week AGT's views jumps to 14% (That is week to week) [http://www.thefutoncritic.com...]4. Americas Got Talent pays more than American Idol. If you win in Americas Got Talent you get paid a million dollars. [http://www.nbc.com...]Now, American Idol does give you a car, and you get a contract with a music producer, but then you have to get fans, which will take a while. This is all thank you once again. Looking forward to your argument. Good luck.
The Legal Drinking and Gambling Age Should be Reduced to 18

Though some of the things you say make perfect sense on the surface level, and in some cases would apply, on the whole they are pretty much dead wrong. I will first disprove your arguments, and then make a few closing comments. First, you say that the 21 mandatory minimum age is unconstitutional. However, although the MLDA act was made by Congress, it is each states' option to pass it or fail it in their own state. The reason why all 50 states did was because they saw the risks of making a minimum drinking age under 21 and the dangers that would occur to their law-abiding citizens. Next, you say that lowering the drinking age would have no real danger on society and other Americans' lives and liberties, however, this could not be farther from the truth. According to the American Medical Association, there was a 141% increase in DWI accidents in states that had a MLDA of 18 years old. By lowering the drinking age, you greatly increase the risks of accidents on the road, showing just how much lowring the MLDA would harm society. In addition, traffic fatalities increased 35% in these sates, which just shows how dangerous the road would be. Your next argument states that by lowering the age, it would reduce binge drinking later on in life, as that is what happens in Europe. While this makes sense, in America this wouldn't work. A New York study showed that those who drank at earlier ages were in fact MORE likely to drink heavier in college and throughout their life. So instead of decreasing binge drinking, a lower MLDA would in fact INCREASE the likelihood of that happening. To close, I feel that lowering the minimum legal drinking age would be a blatant violation of vast amount of Americans' lives liberties and pursitus of happiness. I feel that it would only harm America and all of her people, and is not only unconstitutional, but a bad idea on the whole. Thank Vexonn, that was a good debate, and I would like to remind all voters to p[lease vote on who you thought debated the best, not on your own personal views in the issue, and thank you again.
The Legal Drinking and Gambling Age Should be Reduced to 18

WHile you make some good points, I feel that not only do you leave some of my arguments alone, but you don't really refute the ones you have chosen. Just to start with, I agree with you that the government should in no way gain MORE power than they have right now, and that they should not be protecting us against ourselves, one of the main problems with the War on Drugs and prohibition, but that's another debate. What I meant to say earlier was that the states were not neccesarily concerned with our personal health when making the MLDA 21, but that by lowering it to 18, the disease issue would be one of the reasons it would be bad for the populace as a whole. My next point also ties into my desire for a libertarian society. I feel that Americans should be able to do whatever they damn well please, as long as it does not infringe on others' "lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness". However I feel that with the definite increase in ALCOHOL-related driving accidents (remember I am not talking about illegal drugs here, so your Vietnam argument doesn't make much sense) would definitely influence others' "lives". While I agree with you wholeheartedly that if the government keeps regulating everything we do, we'll turn into a "passive" nation, I restate my earlier point that it would in fact be for the protection of society as a whole, and not just against ourselves. Finally, you never really deal with gambling, which is fine, but again, for that AND for the MLDA, it is up to the states, and what you are proposing is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the Tenth Amendment. These rights are guaranteed for the states, and to make federal laws concerning it AT ALL is against our forefathers' wishes and against the Bill of Rights. Thank you.
The Legal Drinking and Gambling Age Should be Reduced to 18

Libertarian, I respect your argument and am impressed by the research that you have put into your response, however I cannot be swayed. Your point that between the years 1970-1975 the lowered the drinking age from 21 to 18, thus causing more alcohol related incidents is intriguing, however I'd like to focus on the time period for a moment. During the years 1970-1975 we were in Vietnam and we were also in the "peace and love" hippie movement. During this time period lowering the drinking age should have been expected to cause problems just because of the disarray and teen rebellion that was occurring at the time. I would like to point out that people today act much differently. We are not in the same type of teenage rebellion like we once were in the 1960's and 1970's. Today we are much more modern and mature than we once were. Back in those days however people did all kinds of drugs. Heroin, cocaine and alcohol were all drugs that were widely used, but aren't as much today. Next, on the issue of your point about alcohol in Europe causing more liver and heart disease, scientific research has actually proven that a little bit of red wine at a time is actually good for your heart. Plus, I don't think it is the role of the government to intervene with people's choices about their health, and considering the fact that I am arguing with a Libertarian I am surprised that you do. I mean seriously, based on your argument here, what is next? Are we going to have to start banning hamburgers, hotdogs and french fries simply because they increase bad cholesterol and can increase chances of death by heart disease? No, at least we better not. It is an individual's choice to decide what they want to eat. If we let the government control that, then what's next, the clothes we wear? Okay I'm getting off topic now. In conclusion I restate my point that even though excess drinking can lead to health problems, if at the age of 18 people are mature and responsible enough to choose this nation's leaders and to be able to raise children of their own, then they are definitely responsible and mature enough to decide if they should drink alcohol or not. The government can't keep regulating everything that we do, that takes the responsibility away from the citizens themselves and creates a lazy, passive national population.
The Legal Drinking and Gambling Age Should be Reduced to 18

On the surface, a great deal of what you, and a bunch of angry teenagers, have been saying makes sense. "I can vote and die for my country can't I? So why can't I booze up as well." In addition, I definitely used to be completely for it as a fellow angry teen who wanted to know why I can't legally drink and gamble once I turn 18. However, I debated this once for a tournament, and after doing some research, found that this has been tried in America, and failed. (By the way, all my facts came from either http://www.cspinet.org... http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com... and http://www.ama-assn.org...) Well to begin, let's split up the question, and first deal with drinking. In 1970 to 1975, the indeed DID lower the drinking age to 18, felling nothing would come of it. In reality, there was a dramatic increase in alcohol related driving accidents and deaths, in addition to a vast amount of alcohol-related diseases. For example, in many European nations, where 18 is the legal MLDA (minimum legal drinking age) there is a much higher rate of heart and liver diseases. Also, those who begin to drink at earlier ages have a much higher chance of developing alcohol addiction later in life and of having alcohol-related social problems. My last point is against something many people have said which goes along the lines of how they will get beer easily even if it is illegal. However, this is much farther from the truth, as they was a sharp decline in alcohol purchasing for 18-21 year olds after the MLDA was raised again in 1976. So no, I feel that to lower the MLDA to 18 all across the nation would be a poor idea. Now, to gambling. I also felt very strongly about lowering the gambling age, and I actually still do. Luckily, so does most of the nation, and 20 out of the 38 states that have casinos made the minimum gambling age 18. This also shows another, much larger problem of making it a federal law to have the entire nation lower the ages of both things to 18: It would be unconstitutional. Similar to a prohibition, these rights are guaranteed to the states under the 10th amendment (the elastic clause), and would prevent the federal government to make any laws concerning it whatsoever. This is why you only have non-indian casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, as Nevada and New Jersey made laws towards their creation. So in closing, while the two may appear perfectly reasonable at first glance, they either would harm our nation or wouldn't be legal
The Legal Drinking and Gambling Age Should be Reduced to 18

I have always wondered why the legal drinking and gambling age in this country is 21 years old. According to the government we are adults at the age of 18. At 18 years old you are able to get married, have sex, raise a family, vote for President and even be drafted into the military. Why, if at 18 we can do all of these things, can we not drink and gamble? Some may argue that people who are 18 are not yet mature enough to drink or gamble, but that is false because our national government allows us to begin raising families at age 18, which definitely requires much more responsibility and maturity. If this is not the case then what is it? Perhaps it is felt that drinking and gambling are too dangerous for people under the age of 21. I suppose it is possible that they feel that drinking and gambling are addicting and that people in their teens will be unable to resist their addicted urges. Well in response to this I would have to say that just because someone is under 18 that does not mean that they will get addicted easier, people of older ages can often get addicted anyway. Not to mention at the age of 18 in this country we are allowed to purchase and smoke cigarettes. Why then, is the national legal age for drinking and gambling not 18, but 21?
Legal euthanizing of humans

I want to debate on whether the people of the law should legally euthanize serious criminals. I OPPOSE this law. People who kill do not deserve to be killed. We are not living in ancient times when an ear for an ear was the law. No family should see their son,daughter,mother,father,wife,husband ect. Lie on a human shaped table strapped down and then given a shot like when you put down animals . They don't deserve to be put in front of a firing squad and shot at.THEY DON'T DESERVE TO DIE!
Legal euthanizing of humans

Wow. Very descriptive. Yes, while that guy is not a nice man, he could be locked up in a high security prison. He still doesn't deserve to die. High security prisons don't allow barred windows, candy machines, soft blankets and pillows. The toilet is as good as a hole in the ground. You made the point about a daughter being raped. I am a daughter. What that man did was horrible. But he was a son, to a mother and father. While you argue someone's daughter, this man was someone's son. Okay, wow. Just looked it up. But still. this man was a sick sick man. He needs help. Sick people are still their parents child. They wouldn't want their children to die. Also, while mild prisons allow books, nice meals and human interaction, high security prisons do not. The death penalty isn't usually a bullet to the head. Its usually a painless injection, like falling asleep. It's sick that someone can knowingly kill someone. While animals get euthanized, humans shouldn't. Go to youtube and look up death penalty. Hopefully you will find the video i watched a while ago, where a man got the injection while his family watched. The mother broke down outside the room, after the man died. Funerals are sad enough without them being for someone who was killed. ( thinking about suicide and homicide deaths too)
Legal euthanizing of humans

Sorry for the confusion :). I number things because it makes to easier for me to follow, hope you don't mind. 1. Yes, the legal system is flawed and mistakes can happen. However when the death penalty is whipped out that generally means the perp is guilty as sin and has done something unspeakable. This deals with law reformation and is outside of the debate though. While I agree an innocent person should never be executed, the extremes one has to go to to even be considered for execution is rare to say the least. 2. I debate jail being a serious enough punishment. Ya jail sucks, but in Jail you can go to school, read good books, watch tv, work out, buy candy bars, and so on. It is not the "hell" people make it out to be. People think jail is the worst because it represents the loss of freedoms. But a jailed American lives far better than a free person in Somalia. Does someone like Jeffery Dahmer deserve to live better than a Somalian? Ok no more numbering There is a man named Peter Scully (I am being generous to refer to him as a man). He ran a child porn ring and made tons of money off it. Now this wasn't you average pedo stuff- No this was murder porn. Peter and his "partners" would film themselves brutally torturing 5 year old girls. I won't go into what they did but think of the worst things you can do to a person, the absolute limit of what someone could do in terms of torture, and it was still worse than that. Finally after years of search they caught Peter. Now Peter has confessed to all of this, and is red handed guilty. Should he be allowed to live? NO! NO WAY. This man is not human. He took someones daughter- raped and tortured her in the most horrid ways possible and sold the tapes. And he did this 100s of times. See Daisy's Destruction for details if you want to ruin your week. When someone does something that horrible, that sick, that sadistic they lost their right to life. An indivudal who does that does not deserve to eat 3 meals a day, does not deserve to enjoy themselves with a good book, does not deserve to know the joy of human interaction. The best a person like that deserves is a bullet to the head. I am not saying that every killer deserves to be put to the sword. Most killers do not. But the death penalty needs to remain so that we can punish the most extreme and sick people we encounter. I won't debate each death row case and if it is valid or not. Many are invalid I am sure. But there are circumstances where it is not only justified but needed.
Legal euthanizing of humans

I am girl (for future reference) and I too am glad for this debate. Let me ask you this: What happens when an innocent person gets charged with the death penalty? They get killed. The government makes mistakes, all the time. Why should someone die for making a mistake? If they killed someone or many people, yes they should go to prison. Have you seen the inside of a prison? I have, but not as a criminal, as a documentary watcher. Jail is punishment enough. Especially in the high risk of endangerment to others section or the self harm section. Or if you want to go further in the punishment, take the criminal to a an asylum. Where they would never see the light of day outside the walls. These people were once innocent. The government is killing these people. Should the government be put to death for murdering people. Everyone forgets that criminals are people. They are people with something wrong in their brain . They don't need to die, they need help. They can get help in prison, but nobody deserves to die.
Legal euthanizing of humans

This is an issue that ties in with the Death Penalty, and it is a tough subject either way. I look forward to a civil debate Although we do not live in ancient times there are people out there who have done horrible things and killed many innocent people. These people are then caught and impose a massive cost on the system through court cases and years of jailing costs. While debating if someone like Jeffery Dahmer "deserves" to live or not is an opinionated matter I would say that if it were your child raped and killed you may want to see the perpetrator executed for his crime. I will let my opponent make his opening argument and am looking forward to this debate.
PMF Debate Voting

IntroBecause Whiteflame and I had so few votes on our PMF debate, we have decided to create this second debate to hopefully attract some additional votes on it.To that end, we have tied our first debate so that only the voting here reflects the outcome of our initial debate ("The United States should use private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives").RulesVoters here must vote based on who they thought won thhe following debate: http://www.debate.org...Any moderation that would've applied to a vote on the original debate should also be applied to all votes cast on this one.This debate has open voting with the select winner system, just as its parent debate had. Voting will last 2 weeks on this debate, to give plenty of time for people to cast votes if they so desire.Thanks......to anyone who reads our PMF debate and votes here! Whiteflame and I both greatly appreciate it.
UNC is Better Than Dook

Here's some reason why Carolina is the better team Dook lacrosse- Never won a championship yet Coach K is a whiner How can you be hated so Much By so many teams-UNC, Maryland, UK You act like your better than everyone else and your the best team Dook rape case How much body paint do you really need. You lose a Basketball game against UNC and theirs not tears, you cry your eyes out Dook just sucks