BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smoking should be made illegal

1. Perspective has stated that smoking is extremely dangerous for people and is a strong cause of lung cancer. 2. While they are not wrong in this regard, just because cigarettes are extremely dangerous for someone else's health does not justify banning the product. 3. Fatty foods and many desserts are unhealthy and they are a strong cause of another disorder, just not lung cancer (the disease unhealthy foods cause is obesity) and obesity is much more prevalent than lung cancer. Should we ban unhealthy foods? Although I'm someone who eats very healthy myself, it should not be illegal to buy unhealthy foods, just verbally discouraged. 4. Similarly, even if cigarettes are unhealthy for the smoker, it does not mean we should ban them any more than we should ban cookies. 5. While these things cost money for health care costs, these costs can be eliminated simply by taxing things such as cigarettes which already happens. https://www.tobaccofreekids.org... states that the average excess tax for cigarettes is $1.72 per pack, the highest state's tax is New York at $4.35 and the lowest state tax is Missouri at 17 cents (all financial claims are per pack). While these taxes should be higher because the health care and other costs would be equated with a $19.16 tax, it does not mean tobacco products should be outlawed. They should instead be taxed, A LOT! 6. Although parents sometimes are the reason why their kids smoke, many parents tell their kids not to smoke and their kids often obey. Smoking is getting rarer and rarer. Despite about 1/6 people in the US smoking, this is significantly less common among teens, even if you include non tobacco smoking such as with marijuana and other drugs. http://www.canadianbusiness.com... states that both Canada and the US are reducing the smoking rate among their populations. Many people start smoking when their parents have told them no. Many More people (like someone I know) have seen the effects of drugs on people and choose to not smoke them. During the next rounds, can you try to follow the format that I've established?
more guns mean more homicide, more gun control means less homicide

I wasn't trying to prove causation I only was pointing out that where there are more guns there is more homicide. it isn't a far leap though to imply causation.... if makes sense that you are more likely to kill someone if you have a gun, multiply that by lots of guns then you have lots of death. con shows that guns went up and homicide went down in the country. that is an outlier though. I provided ample evidence the opposite is true in the bigger picture. I even gave studies of literature reviews that anyone can do on their own. if your position were true, you'd be able to find academic support for it, which you can't find. "Even when they only include developed nations like Pro indicated should be done, they still show a negative correlation, even though it isn't statistically significant." you have to control for variable such as poverty and violence and guns etc. that is a basic tenant of scientific analysis. when this is done, you see the correlation. again, if your position were true, there wouldn't be an effective consensus regarding my position. con goes on to argue against two forms of gun control. i'm not arugign about specific types of control, my resolution doesn't try to. so this is moot. but to be fair regarding your points, forty percent of gun sales do not require a background check so it's fair to think maybe the law is ineffective cause it's not broad enough. plus just because we didn't see a result doesn't mean it's not there, correlation doesn't mean causation. just common senese is enough to know that some people don't get guns cause they aren't allowed to, and then when they go nuts and don't happen to have a gun, some lives are saved.
more guns mean more homicide, more gun control means less homicide

more homicides correlated to more guns owed. here is a quote indicating that's what a literature review confirms, followed by a site with literature review conclusions. aside from a shoddy study or two or so, you can't find generalize consensus that find different conclusions. Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions "is quite consistent " where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates." this is true when you compare developed nations v developed nations. you can't compare undeveloped. and you also have to have variable control of things like poverty v homicide and guns v homicide R03; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://www.amjmed.com... http://www.vox.com... http://thinkprogress.org... http://www.motherjones.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://heinonline.org... http://tewksburylab.org... states with more gun control have less deaths than states with less gun control. following are some studies that indicate as much, including some literature reviews conclusing as much. you cant find literature review consensus finding different conclusions aside from a few shoddy studies. http://www.politifact.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://m.epirev.oxfordjournals.org... http://archinte.jamanetwork.com...
more guns mean more homicide, more gun control means less homicide

i cited some bias sources, but that ignores the majority of unbias sources which include literature reviews that represents a scientifi onsensus effectively. do a literature review, and you'd be forced to accept my position. the researchers are liberals run amok? that's getting into personal attacks without any substance and not being able to find support for your position from non liberals run amok. if your position were true youd be able to find it. if ninety nine percent of engineers said a bridge was unsafe would you argue it was safe? would you frequent that bridge? regression is an accepted and necessary tool for comparing various variables so your request not to do it is unscientific and without basis. even still, again, if your position was true and it was as mushy as you claim, youd be able to find decent support for your position, and there woudln't be an effective consensus supporting my position. it is common sense that you are more likely to kill someone if you have a gun. that's what is supported indirectly by the studies that say you are more likely to die where there are more guns. if you want to not presuppose that and want to argue that s the conclusion look at domestic violence. a woman is five times more likely to die if your significant other has a gun. this doesn't always include criminals with guns, anyone is susceptible to domestic violence even those who are legally able to have guns. this fact is easly transferrable to any situation where sudden passions flare such as fights or simple anger at someone. con goes on to show anendotal evience in england and washington. who cares what happens in two places? i could show australia where homicides dropped up to fifty percent after gun control, and there was a mass shooting every year before that control and no mass shooting after.... that couldn't be anomaly. but that's just an anecdotal fight. con does nothing to attack the studies i show regardign gun control, i guess he just ignores them or chaulks it up to them being liberals run amok. if his position were true, though, youd be able to find support. just look at the evidence... you are twice as likely to die in the states with the least gun control as you are in the states with the most gun ocntrol.
Joan of Arc was not important to the outcome of the 100 years war.

I'm debating this because I want to learn more about this time period while researching it for this debate, and hopefully improve my debating skills. My reasoning that Joan of Arc didn't influence the outcome of the 100 Years War (or 116 if you wanna be exact) was that she didn't do any fighting or make important military decisions, and mostly just boosted troop morale. France would have still won the war without her.
Joan of Arc was not important to the outcome of the 100 years war.

Hi, I'm very new to this debating site so I apologize if I did anything that offend you or agasint the rules. I'm also not a native English user so I apologize if I make any grammatical error that cause a misunderstanding between us.My argument is going to be about the relationship between religion and warfare that give a huge edge to the French because of Joan of Arc. I'll not make any offensive argument on religion, neither will I praise it, but to show the impact of religion. To know that God is on their side is a very significant addition to the French forces because it's not just the improving of morale, but faith as well.
Gravity does not exist.

Right your point is accepted, and now i have a challenge to disprove gravity. I actually was trying to disprove gravity, to this debate is vaild. I just cant. If i was to say if i had a object a size of a tennis ball and was as heavy as 1000 suns what would happen then, would the earth spin around a tennis ball? If gavity exists then why are the galixes moving further apart? And what the heck does f=ma mean that doesnt prove gravity. And if gravity exists the why doesnt earth just go into the sun whats the other force stopping the earth moving towards the sun. You cant prove gravity because you cant see it.
Gravity does not exist.

I cempetely agree 100% that gavity exists, sorry for the wastful time i gave you, i can not argue back to your response. I purposely did this so that evolutionist can see why people cant argue back to correct and true laws of science. Ridiculous is the perfect word used to desribe the argument agaist gravity. But we can debate agaist evolution with the people who believe in it having differculty responding back. I would also have a hard time responding back to this too with out lying. Evolution simple isn't true. My point proven.
Gravity does not exist.

This is clearly ridiculous. Gravity works on the basis of 'what goes up, must come down' because we are sitting on a very large planet, that pulls smaller things towards it. Without the concept of gravity, everything would just float around, and a gustof wind would blow your house away. Everything would essentially be weightless. Just as my opponent has asked me a question I would like to ask him; if gravity doesn't exist, why do I have weight? Why am I not floating around right now? Why ar[e]nt all thing[s] stuck together, with [n]o spaces inbetween? I'm assuming that's what you meant, if not please notify me. The answer to this question lies in the size of the earth. If the earth was 3 times heavier, it's gravitational pull would be 3 times harder, and we would weigh 3 times more. That is why on the moon we seem 'weightless' because the moon is so much smaller the gravitational pull is greatly decreased. Because of the earths mass we aren't pulled to earth to the point that it smashes us to it; just to the point where is holds us down. I would like to ask another question: If the the theory of gravity doesn't exist, why do we weigh less on the moon? I would like to remind my opponent that his responsibilty for being on the 'Pro' side of the debate doesn't stand at decreasing the belief in gravity to a point where it shouldn't be a law. It stands at proving that gravity could not be real at all. As that is what's meant in the title of this debate which is: 'Gravity does not exist.'
Gravity does not exist.

I an not see the force gavity seems to have on life, where is this phyical object, there is no hand in the sky bringing things together. Everything is floating and had a target place where it should belong, it may seem there is gravity but there isnt any. Why arnt all thing stuck together, with o spaces inbetween? There is no God because if there were then He would have made gravity so we wouldnt have to use flight to reach places like the moon. gravity is a belief not a law of science.
The Ontological argument is not a valid argument for God

It is reasonable to believe that modal realism is true irrespective of evidence. It is common in mathematics to postulate that abstract entities, such as sets, exist as real objects simply because they are useful constructs. Since there is no reason to doubt the existence of mathematical sets, they can be accepted uncritically for pragmatic reasons. The same is true of modal realism, which is useful for understanding possibility, probability, contingency, necessity, counterfactuals and other important concepts in epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of mind. My opponents next objection is quite silly, it infers that an MGB, a spiritually being, must have formed naturally, even if he had made the Universe. An MGB would have existed forever, and will go on to exist forever. Anything less would be a sort of Demi-God, which most likely don't exist.
The Ontological argument is not a valid argument for God

I think the problem is that the argument relies on Modal Realism, a view that not many people hold. For the ontological argument to prove God's existence, you first would have to prove that Modal realism is correct. The other problem I see is that all these possible worlds would be of the same origin and type. Therefore the only things that could exist in them would be things that could have existed in our world, had events gone differently. This doesn't leave any room for spiritual beings to exist in some worlds, as spiritual beings couldn't form through natural events. In conclusion I don't think that we can use the Ontological argument as a proof for God.
The Ontological argument is not a valid argument for God

"At the heart of David Lewis' modal realism are six central doctrines about possible worlds: Possible worlds exist – they are just as real as our world; Possible worlds are the same sort of things as our world – they differ in content, not in kind; Possible worlds cannot be reduced to something more basic – they are irreducible entities in their own right. Actuality is indexical. When we distinguish our world from other possible worlds by claiming that it alone is actual, we mean only that it is our world. Possible worlds are unified by the spatiotemporal interrelations of their parts; every world is spatiotemporally isolated from every other world. Possible worlds are causally isolated from each other." (1) Since the OA is based on Modal Realism, it is safe to say the argument does not state that an MGB exists in an imaginary world. The worlds in the OA are very real, and not so differnt from our own, if at all.Moral Realism is a philosophical version of the long though idea that for every action you could possibly make, a world exists where you could have or did not chose to do something. Some other philosophers claim this leads to countless paradoxes, but I think I will leave that up to my opponent.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Ontological argument is not a valid argument for God

Below I've listed several problems I have with the above argument. 1. In premise 1 you stated that it is possible that a maximally great being exists. Since at this point it is only a possibility, we must agree that it is also possible that this being does not exist. You stated in premise 2 "If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. " If that's true then it is also true that in some other possible world this being does not exist. If in at least one possible world this being does not exist, then surely it cannot exist in all possible worlds. 2. In premise 3 you said that "A maximally great being cannot exist in a limited number of possible worlds. " I assume this is because if it didn't exist in all possible worlds then it wouldn't be maximally great. When we talk about a "possible world" we are either talking about the real world or an imaginary world. If we are talking about a being in the real world then surely existing in an imaginary world would not make it any greater. If we are talking about a being in an imaginary world, then it's maximal greatness as part of it's nature is imaginary just like it. Therefor I don't think that the Ontological argument proves God's existence.
The Ontological argument is not a valid argument for God

I accept. I argue the OA can be percieved as sound.1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.A relatively modest claim.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.Itterating possibility. If you look at an icecream truck, there is a chance they have stawberry icecream. Since it is not impossible that the icecream truck has strawberry icecream, in two (or more) worlds the truck does and does not have the desired icecream.3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.A maximally great being cannot exist in a limited number of possible worlds. So it either exists or does not exist in all worlds. From P1, an MGB exists in at least one world. An MGB exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.Our world must be one of the possible worlds, and since there are no worlds where a MGB doesn't exist, there has to be an MGB.5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.No brainer.6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
The Ontological argument is not a valid argument for God

First off I'd like to say that I do believe in God, but that I don't believe the Ontological argument is a valid proof for God. My opponent must be a theist who holds that the ontological argument is valid. In the first round the opponent will present the argument, in the second I'll present my objections and the opponent can then respond to them. In the third round we'll sum up our arguments.
The God debate.

I now will create laws. 1. No human shall be able to create any objects. If they want something they most pray to me and I'll give it if they deserve it thus making the good richer and the bad poorer 2. No human can kill without my permission. Thus making the human race and the animals live in peace. 3. No human can steal or rape. Reasons are obvious. The punishment for any rule breaking is amputation.
The God debate.

I would then create a portal for every person to a parallel dimension where thay could create and be gods of there own realms/worlds and would be allowed to share with other's. The restrictions on these portals would be nothing created in the portal could come out of it. I would then start crafting the 100 times bigger planet (mentioned in round 2) I would make impossible skyscrapers of solid dimonds carved from one peice and massive Themepark with a rollacoster that go around the entire world in 5-30mins depending on the settings and since I countrol death the G-force wouldn't be an issue, imagin a Ferris wheel that peeks in the upper stratosphere, or a rollacoster that drops right thru the planet to the other side. With free food stands everywhere being run by my duplicates (split off versions of me being controlled by me) And free inns everywhere to crash and unwind if ya get tired, there would also be attractions like real haunted houses (safe of course) and giant water slides and wave pools ect. I have given people the abilty to create/do w/e thay want with portals And made an exciting world for them to chillax at if thay don't feel like doing anything I belive I have satisfied everything anyone could want! But I'll try and think of more for next round :)
The God debate.

Next I will eliminate sickness for all animals and humans. Then I will make all animals' and humans' life span tripled. Then I will eliminate the ability for animals to kill their own kind. Finally I will give the most righteous man per country the power to kill anyone, create anything and see the future but will remove their power once they become unrighteous. Things I have done. - I eliminated word hunger. - I eliminated global warming. - I made the word a better place for all animals. - I made sure no asteroids or aliens will be able to enter the planet Earth - I also created Cybertron and Transformers.
The God debate.

Origin: I am the strongest and fastest man on Earth and for that the Roman Gods have blessed me with even more strength and with that extra strength I was able to kill the Roman Gods and steal their power. With my new powers I kill 5 billion humans thus eradicating world hunger then I eradicate all of their buildings so the Earth is back to nature and man now lives in caves with their technology and weapons. Now the animals roam free and happily and then I expand the earth and make it thrice as big then I cool the earth down thus eradicating global warming then I put a force field around the earth so asteroids and aliens don't come in. Then I create a new galaxy filled with extinct animals and plants and one planet will be called Cybertron there the transformers will live.
The God debate.

I accept your challenge on the premise that your referring to the God game debate I made. Rules you describe your self as a god or describe your God in an attempt to argue you would or it would make a better god than me :) and I will then argue why if given the powers/chance i would make a better God than you or ur god. I will however not be debating pro for a god debate as the title may be interpret and ask the voters to hold no such thing against me if this may be the case... I also ask the voters to not hold spelling or grammar to harshly vs me or my opponet since we're only gods and we aren't perfect :P Let's have some fun m8 and may the godly odds be ever in your favor!
Psychology Forums Should be Regulated by the Government

Pro executed an ad hominem attack by calling me nasty. I am not going to comment on or return pro's attempt to undermine my position through insulting means.The character limit does not allow me to address all of my opponent's points so I have to keep to the important ones. That does not mean that I am dismissive. I need to be selective. A discussion about free market versus market regulations would exceed this debate greatly.The term self-help is defined as helping oneself by joining or forming a group designed to help those suffering from a particular problem. [4]That definition is very clear and applies in this context, if my opponent wished to challenge that definition he should have done so before, not in the last round.My opponent's claim that I did not propose alternative disorders that can benefit from online communities is a blatant fabrication as I did mention aids and autism, both incurable, as examples for disorders that do require a real treatment and do benefit positively from the exchange in order to comprehend their own situation. Pro failed to define explicitly what kinds of regulations would be appropriate in his opinion. Whether bureaucrats would moderate forums themselves or merely keep a quality standard up through indirect actions remains unclear.Considering pro argued that not only moderation would be slowed down greatly but also the activity on such forums I assume that he is not only in favour of governmental moderation but also a review of each single post before it gets submitted.That would slow these forums down so greatly that they would become incredibly inefficient in the process of exchanging of information.The amount of personal required to guarantee such a moderation is also rather impossible.Furthermore no data have been presented that would prove such measures necessary in the first place. One single example has been proposed whose validity I find questionable as I argued in round two.[4] http://tinyurl.com...