BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is the default position

Here is my response:Paragraph one:Yes, according to the agreed upon definition of Atheism, inanimate objects can be atheists. Just because something is "silly" doesn't make it false. It would be silly, for example, to call water, "hydrogen dioxide", yet,by definition, that's exactly what it is. So, yes, calling a baby an atheistmight be defined as silly, but it still is true, by definition. Words like "acowist" or "atelevisionist" may also sound silly, but again, silly does not equalwrong. Paragraph two:You can be either a theist or an atheist. That's a true dichotomy, because there is no third POSITION. Since it is agreed that Atheism is "The Lack of the Belief in a God", a baby's position is atheism by default. Paragraph three:My worthy opponent claims, "Once the baby has grown to an age where it is capable of forming an opinion, it may then adopt a position. "That may be true. However, until that time comes where a baby is capable or forming a position, it remainsin the default position of being an atheist by the definition we agreed upon. My worthy opponent also claims, "in the majority of cases throughout human recorded history, rightly or wrongly, that position has been that a God or gods exist"That, may also be true. However, that does not make it the default position. To claim something as the default position, because the majority believe it, is in fact, a logical fallacy known as "ad populem". Let me explain it this way:There are only two ways to believe something exists.1 You believe something exists until you find evidence to prove that it doesn't exist.2. You believe something doesn't exist until you find evidence to prove that it does exist. Number 2 is the default position. If number 1 was the default position, we would be forced tobelieve EVERYTHING ever thought up, including leprechauns, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and The Loch Ness Monster, until we could prove they don't exist. It's impossible to prove a "nothing". But, that's what is expected when someone demands that you prove something doesn't exist. Demanding proof that unicorns don't exist, is equivalent to demanding proof that nothing does exist. It's impossible to prove, because you can't examine a "nothing". So, if number 1 was the default position, we would be forced to believe everything. That is the ultimate in gullibility. Number 2 makes logical sense and is the best way to avoid being gullible. It is possible to prove something does exist. That's why it's the default position to not believe something exists until it is proved to exist. Since we agreed that atheism is "the lack of a belief in a god", it has to be the default position. An atheist lacks the belief in a god until it can be proved to exist. In other words, since it's impossible to prove a nothing exists, but possible to prove a specific something does exist, the default position would be tobelieve nothing exists until something specific is proved to exist, otherwise you end up believing everything exists. That is why atheism is the default position. I want to thank my worthy opponent once again for the debate. It was a pleasure.
Atheism is the default position

It's never that simple :) According to your reasoning, my pet tortoise and my electric arc welder are atheists - I'm fairly certain that neither of them believe in God. But it is silly to describe either as an atheist, just as it is silly to describe a newborn as an atheist simply because it doesn't believe in something of which it has no knowledge. We might just as well describe a newborn as an acowist or atelevisionist. The key to the debate is in the word "position". A position is a point of view, opinion, stance, perspective or policy. Clearly none of the above mentioned three have a "position" on whether or not God exists. They are neither theists nor atheists. Once the baby has grown to an age where it is capable of forming an opinion, it may then adopt a position. And in the majority of cases throughout human recorded history, rightly or wrongly, that position has been that a God or gods exist. As Voltaire said in his Epistle to the author of the book The Three Impostors - "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him".
Atheism is the default position

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no beliefs at all. All babies are born Atheists.That's why it's the default position. The only way to be a Theist is to learn what a God is and choose to believe in it. That means you must BECOME a Theist from the default position of being an Atheist. Nobody is born a Theist. If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default position of being an Atheist.It's that simple.
Atheism is the default position

For this debate, it must be accepted that the definition of Atheism is "The Lack of the Belief in a God". Due to the threats of conduct points being taken away by terrorist users Actionsspeak & Teemo, before this debate has even started, I will ask airmax to plaese counter vote any such undeserved votes by these harassing users. They seem to believe they have a right to dictate what my debate can or can't be about with the use of extreame harassment tactics and vote bomb threats. "I will say this one more time, and I insist you listen. " "He should change his definition. ""we will surely be voting now. We are already prepared to take away your conduct points" -Teemo
The Death Penalty should be banned

I would like to raise the fundamental question of what if the execution goes wrong? Due to the chemicals used to create the lethal injection, failure or extended periods of time where the inmate is being put down can cause immense pain. According to the DPIC (death penalty information center), out of the 1,054 executions carried out through lethal injection, 75 have gone wrong. That is a percentage of 7.1%, or around 1 in 14 people executed to be in tremendous pain before their death. In 2014, Joseph.R.Wood was planned to be executed yet after the drugs were administered, Joseph gasped for an 1 and 40 minutes before being pronounced dead, hospitals were called and the appeal to stop the execution was denied. “A reporter for the Arizona Republic who witnessed the execution, Michael Kiefer, said that he counted 640 gasps from Wood before he finally died.” Would you not agree that something like that happening is essentially torture? The Oxford dictionary states that torture is “the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment.” Even though this severe pain was not intended, it still happened as part of a punishment which at its core is technically torture. If that is torture and torture is not sanctioned by the UN or the USA, are they not going against their own morals? Are they not quite literally doing what they tell so many people is wrong and unacceptable in our 21st-century society? Last but not least, what about the whole debate about the concept of violence for violence? A quote that I personally love is one from Martin Luther King Jr: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” If someone is violent towards somebody, and we treat them back with violence, that will not eradicate violence, only make it worse or sustain the current level. There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than a sentence of life without parole or a prison term. In fact, evidence startlingly reveals the exact opposite. Twenty-seven years after abolishing the death penalty, Canada saw a 44 percent drop in murders across the country. Putting people to death evokes outrage causing more people to want to defy the law and in result get themselves put into prison or put to death. Isn’t the whole concept of the Justice system, which is to reform people and try and change them totally disregarded by carrying out the death penalty? I do understand that some people can’t change because of certain reasons but there is still the option of life without parole. For the people that can change, we need to treat them with love and show them that they are not worthless and that do have a purpose. As Martin said, hate cannot drive out the hate but love can. We can only help someone let their anger go if we love them and show compassion towards them so they can realize what they did was wrong and can change. Does the death penalty do that? No.
The Death Penalty should be banned

To begin, I want to discuss the massive issue of what if the person being executed is actually innocent? Murderers who have been convicted guilty of murder are occasionally put on death row. Yet we have to wonder, what if that person never committed the awful things the judge and jury may be accusing them of? Is it not unlawful to execute a person who is innocent? Does that not make the executor the true murderer? Since the 1980"s, there have been 13 cases in which executed inmates may have been innocent after further investigation. The most recent was Brian Terrell who was executed in December 2015. Here is a bit of his story:"Just before 1:00 a.m. on December 9, 2015, Georgia executed Brian Terrell. As the execution drug was administered Terrell mouthed the words: "Didn't do it." His lawyers argued that no physical evidence linked Terrell to the murder and that his conviction and death sentence were the product of prosecutorial misconduct and false and misleading testimony. Physical evidence from the crime scene leaves substantial questions as to Terrell's guilt: footprints found near the victim's body were smaller than Terrell's feet, and none of the 13 fingerprints found by investigators matched his fingerprints."It is not ethical to sentence someone to death if there are doubts about the evidence found at the crime scene. Furthermore, it is unlawful to put someone to a daunting fate if you cannot be positive that the person standing in front of you is the person who you are looking for. Additionally, we have to question whether the justice system may be tied to religion, racial bias and family history. Statically, black people may be more likely to commit crimes but we cannot base whether someone is deserving of the death penalty on what they look like or who they are as a person. Brian Terrell was a black man and many lawyers wonder if the judge believed he was more likely to have committed the crime due to his ethnical background. Imagine the outrage the family of the inmate may feel if they discovered that their family member was executed and then discovered to be innocent? Think about the family of the victim who believed they finally had closure for their deceased only to discover that the real monster is still out there. Thus concluding the reason why the death penalty is so dangerous if the person is truly innocent.
Birth Certificates Are Superfluous

Those were my reasons why birthdays are so important.1. First the Birthday is a day once a year when you celebrate because you grew one more year older. This is once a year and a big change to you. For, example, won't you celebrate if you have a baby or your baby is 100 days year old? This is the same thing so we should celebrate the birthdays by using certificates and also by giving presents. 2. You are just a worm who says that birthdays are not important. However a birthday is one of you most important day of life. I wonder If you didn't have any celebrations in your birthday or a special day.Rebuttals1. Pro did not make arguments and just made negative comments. He did not do anything related to the debateVote for Con!
Birth Certificates Are Superfluous

Wow, that's you defense? "we are the children of stardust, spiritually, of the Divine Energy." Just kill me now. You're an unworthy worm, whose feeble mind can't comprehend anything actually logical or real. Going off on a completely unrelated tangent about stars and moons and "Milton". I won't even bother obliterating you. Clearly your mental ward is getting too lenient when it comes to giving internet privileges to patients. This isn't a debate about the cosmos buddy. It's about birth certificates. That's it. But why should I even bother? Your birth certificate was an apology from the condom factory anyway. You're nothing.
Birth Certificates Are Superfluous

A birthday comes once a year. It is when you where born so it is a special day. You need to give certificates because the person is growing. The whole universe is at work, not only our parents, producing each one of us. The very stars in their courses have laboured and continue to labour (hence the validity of Astrology) to bring us into unique, particular and separate being out of the unitary infinite non­being. Materially, we are the children of stardust, spiritually, of the Divine Energy whose Creative Action in Eternity is ceaseless. So indeed stars and unseen powers shape and affect our lives and destinies, and we in turn affect the cosmos, so much so that the movement of an arm or the winking of an eye, or a stir of the mind and the heart affects the farthest stars and the divine unknown Powers that be, Powers designated by Milton as Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Virtues, Powers.http://beingtrulyhuman.org...https://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.lorrikey.com...http://thoughtcatalog.com...;
That Utilitarianism is Untenable

Full resolution: That the consequentialist theory of ethics known as Utilitarianism is false in all of its forms.Definitions:Consequentialism: Any normative theory which states that the ethical course of conduct is necessarily the one which produces the best consequences.Utilitarianism: The belief that the action which produces the best consequences, and hence is ethically best, is the one that maximises pleasure and minimises pain to the greatest possible extent.Rules:1. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.2. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.3. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.5. Arguments are to be strictly formalised and signposted. All arguments are to be listed and numbered, all premises are to be preceded by "Px", where "x" is the number of the premise, all examples are to be preceded by "Ex.", and all analytical argumentation is to be preceded by "An.". Rebuttals shall state which premises, analysis or examples they disagree with, and rebuttal is to follow the same formula.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the opponent.Burden of proof: In this debate, Utilitarianism is to be presupposed. It shall be my job to demonstrate that it is untenable.Model:Throughout the debate I shall put forward the following arguments:1) The Mere-Addition Paradox2) The Utility Monster3) Moral Luck4) The Trolley Problem
That Utilitarianism is Untenable

Mere Addition ParadoxP1- See above argumentsP2- See above arguments.An. No, I concede that a society with more total pleasure is preferable as opposed to being somehow innately superior.An. Why yes, we would have that obligation. But, again, we can change their lives for the better! Pro continues to ignore this, but it's an essential part of utilitarianism. If we obliged to provide the greatest possible pleasure, then we are also oblidged to improve the lives of those people, and to think in the long term.An. Adding such a condition would be foolish, and further take it out of rationality and into a bizarre fantasy-land specifically constructed to make utilitarianism look as bad as possible without having the slightest effect on what it actually is.An. Conceded.P3 - See above arguments.An. Mistake on my part.An. Actually, it does matter. Keep in mind that the British Empire was unethical because of its effects on other people. It decreased their total pleasure.P4- N/AP5- N/AC - Conclusion is negated.The Utility MonsterP1 - N/AAn. And Pro has given us no reason to believe that the Utility Monster is in the least plausible. A creature that experiences over one unit of pleasure for each unit of pain inflicted, forever, no matter how many units of pleasure it gets, and cannot be sated in any other way than inflicting pain (for instance, violent video games don't serve as an outlet) is innately an extraordinary claim.P2 - N/AP3 - N/AAn. It's logically possible in the sense that it isn't inconsistant, but that doesn't necessarily mean that much.Ex. It is logically possible that a reality warping entity made utilitarianism the best ethical system by zapping anyone who doesn't agree with it. This is not a serious argument for utilitarianism.An.1) Yes, your point?2) That would require his pleasure gained to be more than that lost from putting him above all else.3) N/AC - The conclusion is rejected.Moral LuckP1 - N/AP2 - N/AAn. In that case I would argue that we should assign blame in greater quantities to intentional actions. That does not make them necessarily more or less ethical, though.C - The conclusion is rejected.The Trolley ProblemP1 - N/AP2 - N/AP3 - And Pro has given us no reason aside from his personal feelings on the matter as reason for it being unacceptable.An. P3 did not specify if the lives had equal hedonic value.An. Actually, it might be a result of a different ethical system.C - The conclusion is rejected
The death penalty is fair and should still stand.

Thank you for posting your next argument. Sinning...hmm. 1. 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' 2. 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' 3. 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' 4. 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' 5. 'Honor your father and your mother.' 6. 'You shall not murder.' 7. 'You shall not commit adultery.' 8. 'You shall not steal.' 9. 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' 10. 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' No where does God say that the death penalty is wrong. In fact, after God gave Moses those laws he also gave laws concerning the death penalty. Saying that it is sinning to use the death penalty is not true. It is not the same as the person committing the crime. The murder is not punishing anyone. If you think about it, lethal injection is merciful compared to what the murder did. The injection does not rape, or abuse that murder. I believe I have made my point. So thank my opponent for this debate, She did well. And I thank the audience for reading it.
The death penalty is fair and should still stand.

I do not agree what so ever . prison is a different type of punishment yes people should have a punishment for there wrong doings but there are better ways to approach it rather than killing when we use lethal injection we are sinning the same as the person committing the crime I am not saying they should be let go with no punishment they should have to pay for what they have done but as I have said before two wrongs DON'T make a Wright.
The death penalty is fair and should still stand.

Thank you for posting your next argument. That question comes up in a death penalty debate about 99% of the time. It is something to be considered. Tell me, how many people have died on death row who were proved innocent? What lots of people fail to relies is that judges do not just sentence anyone they want to death row. There are many hours put into making sure that the person is guilty. Saying we should abolish a punishment because me might punish the wrong person is not a good idea. We could say the same thing about prison. Should we get rid of the prisons all together just because we might lock up someone by accident? If Iran attacked the United States on American ground, there would most likely be innocent people there who were drafted by their country. Should the US not fight back because of that risk? I look forward to your response.
The death penalty is fair and should still stand.

Thank you for posting your argument. Killing is not wrong, murdering is, but not killing. Murdering: To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. Saying that the death penalty should not stand is saying that Saddam Hussein, a man who is behind mass murders, should have stayed alive. It is only fair that murders get what they are supposed to. It would not be right to lock a random person in prison. But if a man has stolen from someone then it is fair that they get locked up. Same thing with the death penalty. Read this story. New Orleans (AP) - The attractive wife of a New Orleans business executive died Wednesday of injuries inflicted 12 hours earlier by a robber who rapped and beat her, then shot her in the head. Ms Louis S. Harris, 41, was attacked on the second flood apartment on a quiet Louisiana Avenue Parkway. Her 13-year-old son, Seth, found his mother lying face down on the bed in his bedroom when he returned home from school. She was bound and gagged. Do you believe that this guy should be spared death? I look forward to your next argument. Sources: (1). http://news.google.com...
The death penalty is fair and should still stand.

This i my challenge to Alyssa. It is her 1st debate so it will be set with 4000 Characters. I will be brief on my first argument . I believe that the death penalty should still stand in the United States because it is only fair that the murders get their punishment. I believe in lethal ejection. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com...
Media Negatively Affecting our Youth

Of course we don't want see children on drugs. This can be solved by educating one child about the effect of drugs have you heard of the dare program. Most of these situations is caused by bad parenting, parents do not explain/enforce their child that drinking is bad and can cause a major problem in their lives. Anorexia can't be all caused by viewing a program on television, it could be caused from a genetic disorder according to University of Maryland Medical Center "Researchers have identified specific chromosomes that may be associated with bulimia and anorexia. In particular, regions on chromosome 10 have been linked to bulimia as well as obesity. Some evidence has reported an association with genetic factors responsible for serotonin, the brain chemical involved with both well-being and appetite" Also a lot of these disorders involve a type of social connection for these diseases to appear. In the end a lot of these disorders can be prevented through education.