BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
electronics are ruining peoples lives.

Thank you for pointing out my errors. To revise my point on hardcore gamers, they will stay on their systems. most likley they will be on it every day or every other day. According to http://www.brighthub.com.... "Developers create game mechanics which are fun but when it comes to MMOs they also want a hook which pulls those gamers back in time and again. They want those servers populated and they want their fans immersed and invested. The solution for many is to offer a real reward in terms of power and status which is linked to the daily grind. Forget about genuine skill this can be about putting in the hours pure and simple. The downside to a mechanic like this is that people can become over invested. They can become obsessive about their characters and they can end up spending so much time in the virtual world that their real life suffers. In extreme cases gamers have been known to play until they quite literally drop. The link between MMOs and violence is tenuous at best and there have been very few incidents of MMO drama spilling into real life violence. However a trend which does seem to be on the increase is gamers playing until they collapse and sometimes even die. People become so engrossed in their game that they skip toilet breaks, they put off eating and they decide they can get by on three hours of sleep. We've all done it, when you are really engaged in a game the outside world ceases to exist and tearing yourself away from that keyboard can be a serious wrench." MMO games is where i was generally pointing. Sorry to not make that more clear. I apologize. But you have to see that some of these advancements are a problem for our society. As for my opponent stating "If we lived a life without electronics, then we can not have all of the technology and materials that they provide, either. That includes: cloth,cars,paper,pens,pencils,cigarettes (best thing ever), soda, drinkable distilled water,majority of the food you eat, A LOT of modern music and culture, and much, much more," this is not all true. We do not require such complex machinery to create our items that we have today. Off topic, take a look at the mideval times. Did they have technology? I even see that there was no pollution that we have today from our gasoline powered vehicles. Any who. I believe you are right about the cellular dilema. Negligence does infact play a large role in most deaths in the U.S. If more actually paid attention, they would'nt have to pay the ultimate price. thanks for the argument, it was a blast. Take care all of you guys out there. Be careful on the roads. Vote Pro. Thanks for reading. good luck Con.
electronics are ruining peoples lives.

Now, let's get to his arguments. REBUTTLES:"life can be found to be rather enjoyable without any electronics. " That is an opinion, but we will still go with it. If we lived a life without electronics, then we can not have all of the technology and materials that they provide, either. That includes: cloth,cars,paper,pens,pencils,cigarettes (best thing ever), soda, drinkable distilled water,majority of the food you eat, A LOT of modern music and culture, and much, much more. (:"have you noticed that computers have been made to be more and more fun? have you failed to acknowledge that some users never leave their home, destroying any social contacts they have made? "The point of computers is to entertain, but it also helps people grow, and evolve as a society. That is one of the many important things provided by electronics. It helps people create medicine, learn about different cultures, religions, and different political stances, something that is VERY important in today's society. An example of this is when I went to a school that taught creationism, not evolution. I had to learn the theory of evolution on my own, an impossible feat without a computer. The reason that some people never leave their homes is because they are anti social. I have stayed in my house all day before, just reading and eating cookies. Some people are like that, but it isn't because of technology. "but do not fail to notice that a large majority of car crashes involve the use of cell phones. texting or calling, it distracts the drivers attention from the road and others around him/her. "First of all, it isn't a large majority. It is about 28% (and that is a high number) but it still isn't a large majority. And as far as it distracting drivers, I agree, but it isn't the electronics, it's the negligence of the driver. "video games. i am a game freak but to a limit. gamers (preferably hardcore) tend to spend up to 48-72 hours on their system. "A day, a week, a month, a year? what is the time period that contains this statistic? "they capture the users attention and almost seem to suck their will to do anything other than play. they loose any want to do any outside activity what so ever. take that young fellow on 1000 ways to die. do you think that gamer died from lack of attention, stress, or the massive blood clots he had developed by playing that acursed game while sitting down for 3 days straight? "They are meant to entertain, that is why they capture the user's attention. They are meant to help us escape from our crappy lives. As far as your example, a TV show isn't a credible source. (:I await my opponent's response! Sources: . http://www.washingtonpost.com...
electronics are ruining peoples lives.

in the famed words of Ace Ventura "Alrighty then!" i will agree as far with my oponent that it would make life grueling, but to a certain extent. life can be found to be rather enjoyable without any electronics. have you noticed that computers have been made to be more and more fun? have you failed to acknowledge that some users never leave their home, destroying any social contacts they have made? me personaly i can barely tolerate technology. in fact it makes me downright sick. but only select items of technology. cell phones. a brilliant device crafted by the mind of Martin Cooper. though it has made life much easier for most. but do not fail to notice that a large majority of car crashes involve the use of cell phones. texting or calling, it distracts the drivers attention from the road and others around him/her. i would like to point out cell phone zombies. have you seen any people mindlessly wander around while on their phones? they loose perception of their surroundings and possibly get themselves or others hurt. video games. i am a game freak but to a limit. gamers (preferably hardcore) tend to spend up to 48-72 hours on their system. either on their computers of ps3 xbox, 360 ect. they capture the users attention and almost seem to suck their will to do anything other than play. they loose any want to do any outside activity what so ever. take that young fellow on 1000 ways to die. do you think that gamer died from lack of attention, stress, or the massive blood clots he had developed by playing that acursed game while sitting down for 3 days straight? i have no further argument until my opponent responds. thanks for reading.
any flying object is identified as a flying object

This debate is pretty easy, because all I really have to do is piggyback off what PRO himself wrote. If there exists a single unidentified flying object, you vote CON. First, PRO admits that there is a such thing as a UFO, or an "unidentified flying object. " He questions whether this is actually an alien ship: perhaps it's just a light bug. The fact that there exists this uncertainty is a testament to the fact that the object is unidentified. It could be a bug, it could be a spaceship, it could be a plane, it could be a paraglider, and the list goes on and on. As this link elucidates, there have been plenty of UFO sightings: . http://www.livescience.com... To this day, we still have not identified these objects. Therefore, not all flying objects are identified.
We should move towards a world where everybody is vegan

To wrap up the debate.Pro used his own morality to claim that eating meat was immoral without justifying his own morality and negating the morality of others who disagree.Pro conceded that there are instances in which eating meat is justified. Pro conceded that we have no obligation to do the right thing unless God exists, then proceeded to concede that there is no evidence for God. Thank you for the enlightening discussion.
Science has not and cannot prove that God does not exist

You said people sometimes refuse to believe their spouses are dead. Couldn't that be the other way? Couldn't people believe God exists because of some event that happened in their life? I think the answer is obvious. I didn't try to disprove the existence of God, God was in my life since birth, and I believed in him. However, he slowly faded away as I acquired the thirst for knowledge, and it led me to unbelievable creative intellectual thoughts that shed light on the God concept. You surely must believe that I am a real person and that I exist. But even if you spoke with a machine, you would be interested in what is stated in this debate, so the existence/diversity of the entity typing this is not really important since only the content is. Science may be neutral, but God, seen by an observer is also neutral. Science may be a product of man, but so is religion and God, it's just that science observes and concludes upon the natural. And if God exists he surely must be natural. Science has many unanswered questions, but as it gathers more and more information, many fundamental questions, as if there is a God, I believe will be answered.
Science has not and cannot prove that God does not exist

It is the common scientific belief that 95% of the universe is consisted of Dark matter(~23%) & Dark energy(~72%), so the next step would be to assume that the whole diversity of the universe is in the other 5%, of which we know most. You mention Jesus Christ as God's intervention and there are two reasons why I'm skeptical of it. The first is that I think the people of his time were extremely gullible, believing in the supernatural and having next to no research of the world around them. Even if Jesus was real, imagine him in our modern society where all his actions would be questioned and studied. The second reason is that I think the Bible is almost entirely metaphorical. Most of my life I was a Christian, a Roman Catholic. So in school I have had religious education, where it was clearly pointed out that the Bible is metaphorical. In my brief 19 years on this planet, I have studied religion, I have lived by it, I have seen dying people mumbling for God on their deathbed and I did not see/experience anything divine. I think most people cannot grasp the concept of death, so religion offers a clear, kind of obviously imagined(I'm not saying that it truly is), explanation of the afterlife. To answer your question more directly, I have taken the Bible in attempt to see if indeed its claims were true, and the only thing I found were superstition and weird, unreasonable claims. The Bible, and Christianity require a leap of faith so big I am just not willing to take it before I experience it with my own sensations.
Science has not and cannot prove that God does not exist

I respect so much your honesty, and am delighted that you understand the concept of what I have asserted. My point is that atheists use science and distort it's findings, which are minimal in consideration of the sheer enormity of the universe, to say God does not exist. They do not oppose religion in general. They oppose anyone who believes God exists, mainly Christians. The term atheism comes from Greek. It was two words: a; alpha, meaning negative, and theos meaning god. The literal translation is negative god, but it implies there is no God. Jesus Christ was God's intervention upon our history. No other single life has made such impact, or even a kingdom for that matter. Consider that His life is the dividing line of history, hence the origin of B.C. for before Christ, and A.D. for Anno Domini meaning in Latin the year of our Lord. History has provided this witness for humanity, and many biblical documents have been found that predate Jesus'slife that show the accuracy of the text of the Old Testament that we still have in the Bible. So there is left then that atheists stubbornly refuse to admit the evidence that stands clearly before them. Archaeology is, after all, a valid field of science that needs little speculation for it's findings, not that they have never occurred, but in the case of Christianity are relatively few such occasions. Given your ability to grasp the concept, it makes me wonder what still renders you skeptical to the extent of agnosticism. What is hindering you from taking the Bible at it's word and making attempt to see if indeed our claims be true?
Science has not and cannot prove that God does not exist

You mustn't be so close minded about God, imagine you were a 2D object in a 2D world and I was who I am now, a 3D object in a 3D world. Now, you would hear my voice but you would not see me, hence, you would probably label me divine. For you to find proof of my existence would not require you to have perfect knowledge about your 2D world since even if you had one, no proof would be presented. Just imagine yourself 500 years ago. Would you even understand the concept of quantum computers? It would clearly seem like sorcery. And I can think of many more convincing examples to back up my statement. When I said we do not know whether science has a limit or doesn't I was stating that it can take us beyond our space-time continuum which certainly doesn't require traveling across the universe. Science is well aware of that, so today, there is more and more abstract thinking which could lead us to 'upper heights', a higher dimension, an evolution of consciousness or whatever lies beyond, even if its endless nothingness. Life on Earth is on a voyage through eternity, trying to find answers for the questions we pose. The answers could be just anything, they are most likely not even comprehensible by our brains. BUT, you must admit that science is the leading force filled with curiosity, of which almost every branch tries to comprehend our universe and what is beyond it. Now, I, as a human being am well aware of how faulty my perception of my conscious self could be. I am not trying to completely discredit people that experienced God. However, there are many diluted experiences that do not involve God and are clearly explained by psychoanalysis, neurology or some other field of study. The bottom line is, for us knowing the truth about God, it would require either a clear, public intervention by God into our physical world, or science making the biggest, most important breakthrough in human history. When we look at the facts, the number of known interventions and the number of scientific breakthroughs, only ignorance stops us from trusting science.
Science has not and cannot prove that God does not exist

The statement you made in the third sentence, that we do not have knowledge of the whole entire universe is exactly why I said that science is too limited for atheists to assert that scientific evidence demands presently the validity of their claim. Science also cannot posit that nothing exists outside the realm of physical observation either. In order for us in the first place to have complete knowledge tangibly of the whole of the physical universe, even provided one were able to travel at the speed of light, it would require multiple billions of years for arrival at even nearer points than it's far edge, much less the time to fully analyze such galazies elsewhere upon our arrival, considering that we have not even fully arrived at a full tangible knowledge of our own galaxy the Milky Way, which alone boasts a diameter of 220 billion light years. So, does it seem likely that humanity can possess such complete knowledge of even just the physical constituency of the universe? All they can do is reference available data for analysis, which is likely to continue to remain incomplete indefinitely as regards concrete evidence beyond the assumptions of theoretical speculation. Plus, scientific analysis cannot invalidate the testimonies of a multitude historically and presently that they have experienced God and carry on a relationship with Him. Firsthand experience cannot be invalidated, even by the probabilities arrived at through speculative analysis. The people who make such claim, myself included, bear testimony that they had no such experience until having approached God on the biblical terms given as imperative in the Bible itself. The only way to truly invalidate it would be to submit to the terms demanded by God in scripture, which requires one submit to the perspective of the Bible instead of attempting to subjugate the Bible to one's own personal perspective. In the scriptures, God has made it clear He will not submit to the terms of His creation for validation, but will provide it only on the basis of submission to His terms. Thus science on that ground cannot refute His existence even through physical analysis either.
Science has not and cannot prove that God does not exist

Well, in your reply you make two statements. The first is that science is limited. You can not make that presumption since we do not know what the majority of the universe really is. The logical step is to make the assumption that science can prove or disprove the existence of God, since we do not know its limit. The second is that people make implications based on their personal mental state. I actually agree, but the right move to make here is publicly debate those implications, having in mind where they came from. I myself think that widely known atheist that use science as their 'weapon' are mostly just anti-theist. In most cases they just want to get rid of religion, not God. Having that in mind, try to reason with all the circumstances that surround the implications/statements they make and then make your own opinion of it. Now, I agree science is neutral, but when it disproves Thesis A it becomes anti-A. From my point of view science will not disprove or prove the existence of God in the near future, we still have a long way to go. But it IS NOT impossible.
Science has not and cannot prove that God does not exist

I used to possess a skeptic point of view myself, so I understand fully the context of your perspective from which you place your argument. I happily offer my reply that there also exist evidences that science has discovered that carry the implied probability that God does exist. The point of my assertion is that in order for it to positively confirm such an absolute negative, it would have to possess first hand knowledge of and obsevance within the ability for our senses to measure every thing in existence, which lies far beyond the scope of our ability. People claim facts prove something based on what is observed in the resulting evidence of either past things or presently occurring things which are in our ability to accurately observe them. Science cannot however discover by objective analysis why there is existence. They would have to possess the ability to observe the beginning of the universe to see what initiated the matter in the irreducible singularity they have postulated in the Big Bang Theory to exist in the first place to be impelled to expand beyond that state and why such initiation took place for us to have a reality to observe. I think that you would agree that such a proposition is reasonably and existentially impractical in realistic parameters. It is ignorance to assume that based on what little fragment of all that can possibly be known of the universe that we possess through science can be an exhaustive reference for not only what, when, or how, but also why everything is the way it is. People do not claim science may disprove God. They affirm that it has as a fact. That is the arrogant assumption that I am refuting. No evidence exists that can back up this claim, and never will within the limitations of the human ability of investigation. What is more is that science of itself makes no such claim in the basis of pure evidence devoid of intimation being added to it. It is the implication people add resulting from personal disputes with the existence of God that try to disprove Him. If science held the record of everything there is to know, it would have no need to continue investigation for the purpose of gathering more information. Science is invested in the neutral observance of that which naturally occurs, not the personal mission to disprove anything exceeds it, or the humans that observe it. And no confident argument can be given that science is inherently contrary or opposed to God in and of itself.
Science has not and cannot prove that God does not exist

Science has shown that it is very good in filling/scientifically proving certain aspects that have been accountable to God. I think it is ignorant to state that science cannot prove that God does not exist since a certain period ago, the very same could be stated for the roundness of earth. From my skeptic point of view, nothing can ever be certain since everything is just a interpretation made by the brain. BUT, I, even if fooled, have a sense of morality, reason and logic. Following that makes me believe that scientific research will further discredit religion, and at some point it could even discredit the existence of God. Hypothetical implications are made to be researched, debated and proven. Science had a variety of hypothetical implications on any topic, but to my knowledge, one always came up to be true. Don't mistake my opinion, I don't BELIEVE in science, I follow my reason and my logic which leads me to think that science is the most promising and most objective way of knowing the truth.
Science has not and cannot prove that God does not exist

I propose science lacks the ability to prove God does not exist. My argument will be on the basis of existintial and experiential grounds. Hypothetical implications from theoretical science do not qualify as proofs, only theories, hence the name of the field and the nature of it's postulations. I want my opponent to demonstrate, if possible, how those who follow science can say with absolute certainty how science has actually achieved this claim by way of concrete evidence. Bear in mind that I do believe the actual findings of science, and do not dispute the actual evidence it has discovered to us. I do not support the implications and intimations people have added to the evidence for the purpose of supporting their opinion with disregard to the whole; however, for the sake of personal feelings and not the pursuit of the truth.