BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists

So I have been spreading this rumor around that I left Islam and became an atheist lately mostly to play the devil's advocate. These did not happen and I will never become atheist but I was merely trying to collect as many as rebuttals as possible.I will be arguing in this debate that the case for God is extensive and is most often underrated. I will be using science, philosophy and logic to form the foundations for my arguments for God. I am a Theist and my opponent should most likely be an atheist who denies the existence of God.Definitions :Universe - all of space, matter, time and energyGod - the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authorityExists - to have an objective being or existence.Rules :-no trolling-no forfeits-no semantics (tweaking definitions of the dictionary)Rounds :Round one - acceptanceR2) argumentsR3) Rebuttals + argumentsR4) RebuttalsR5) RebuttalsBOP : Burden of proof will be shared. The opponent (who is most likely an atheist) will have to demonstrate that God does not exist. Since claiming that the natural reality is all that exists and that there is no supernatural reality is a claim. Whoever claims that God does not exist is making a negative claim and therefore should prove it. Proving a negative claim is possible because you can prove that there are no muslims in the U.S. senate, there are no dinosaurs on the face of the Earth, the sun does not orbit the Earth. all of those were negative claims that should and could be proven. The most logical position taken if you reject the claim that there is a God would be an agnostic, who claims that he simply does not know since you would still have no evidence for/against either sides. No arguments against religion shall be made since you could disprove all religions and you still would not undermine or even address the reliability of God.
Debate.org should not endorse any political party or argument

Rebuttals:Ad appeal to an audience is very tricky. This site is basically people who are either trolls or people legitimately interested in debating. These people who like to debate generally know a thing or two about politics [I don't need a source for this; look at the sidebar. As I'm writing this, there are 7,658 debates on politics]. People who know about politics will usually agree with or be outraged by political ads, and that makes people click on ads. These ads are not endorsements. They are ads. If DDO wanted to endorse a political view, than they would not put ads in the sidebars. You see ads like this on any site you go to that has ads. DDO is expected to have ads if they want a free website. These ads are the best way to make money. I will not make arguments this round, since it is the last. Thanks for an interesting debate. You did a good job, but remember that people give points for sources and spelling. You are also the first person who actually finished a debate with me.
Debate.org should not endorse any political party or argument

I agree with you on the idea of having debate.org having ads to prevent a paid membership, but I am going to quote one of the advertisements that I have seen. "GOP Attacking Working Families. Tell John Boehner to extend unemployment insurance. Sign the online petition." I would be lying if I said I wasn't against a minimum wage hike, but frankly I would go even more explosive if the ad said to block the push for the hike. I will also admit that I have no idea of what the details are for the unemployment insurance. What I am saying is that this is obviously endorsing the Democratic Party. I think that this is very blatantly an endorsement. There is no way that the GOP would be stupid enough to not follow the Democrats onto a debating website like this and NOT outbid Toyota. I apologize for kind of creating a new argument here too. In your last argument, you said and I quote, "to make these ads effective, they have to appeal to audience." The audience on this website would be all of the people who actively use the site. The advertisement I quoted earlier also called for viewers to sign their petition. If a call to action asking people to participate in these partisan activities is what "appeals to the audience" then the audience must have a decent sized majority that agrees with that party. If most of the people are on the same side, what is the point of creating a website where people argue with each other? Why not just create site that says to agree with your party? Thanks for participating in this debate. This is my first one, so tell me how I did.
Debate.org should not endorse any political party or argument

It should be interesting. I also want to thank you for not using Ad block (If you did, you would not know about the ads). It keeps the site free. Arguments:First of all, I want to say that I will argue that DDO should use be able to use politically charged advertising, not that they should directly support a political view. DDO, from time to time, does have politically charged ads. Let's look at the facts here. DDO is free[1]. It uses advertisements. Advertisements are generally made to appeal to the viewers [2]. If DDO did not use ads, it would likely resort to a paid membership, decreasing the user base. This helps create a more diverse debating environment. To make these ads effective, they have to appeal to audience. Therefore, DDO sometimes has ads that are politically charged. They spark interest on the website. They also have non-politically charged ads, so we can see that the political ones are not meant to be endorsements. They are simply a way to make money for providing a free service. Rebuttals:These ads don't forge our opinions. Obviously you don't think that the minimum wage hike is a good idea, or else you wouldn't be so angry about the ads. There isn't much else to say. DDO needs money, so they put ads on the site. Even if these ads are biased, they are necessary to keep DDO free. Sources:[1]. http://www.debate.org... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate.org should not endorse any political party or argument

One of the advertisements I saw said to endorse senate democrats in their pushing of a minimum wage hike. Another one I saw stated that we needed to stop republicans from blocking that hike. Whether you agree with the minimum wage hike or not, I think that this website should be used as means for us to argue amongst ourselves, not for them to try to forge our opinions. We should be the ones campaigning for certain arguments, not the website developers.
Should death penaltys be brought back

For my last argument, I was planning to do a second round of rebuttals, but as there is no reply to my last post, I will end this quickly. My conclusion is that the although the misuse of the death penalty may be demonstrated in some cases, the overall use of the death penalty was to give just punishment to the criminal. If the death penalty is brought back, then the punishment will give a warning to all other criminals and prevent crime in the area.
Should death penaltys be brought back

You have stated that a life sentence is longer and a worse experience for the inmates..However, rather than making the inmates suffer that long period, why not use the death sentence? If the death sentence is brought back, then the criminals would get the punishment they deserve and will suffer less. Also, it would be a lesson to society. Although punishing crimes are important, it is also important to prevent them. With the death penalty in action, it will prevent society from doing wrong. You also said that the death penalty could be used to punish something else rather than murder. In that case, that would be a direct misusage of the penalty, but since that is up to our judicial system, I believe that it has no relation to our debate's topic. If the death penalty is misued, then that is for the judge who made the order to be blamed.
Should death penaltys be brought back

Firstly, my main focus will be that the punishment must fit the crime. We always try to punish murder with a life sentence, but is it fair to repay a dead persons anger and the dead ones family with a life sentence in prison? Sure, we could say that death penalties are too drastic or inhumane but I doubt that anyone who reads this debate has ever had a loved one murdered. If you have, you would know the pain and sorrow of losing someone. I will keep my first round short, but it is already obvious that for some crimes, the best repayment is death. More examples and details in round 2.
The Browns will go 0-16.

You're not making a very good case for yourself. You're case is based on the fact that they won LAST year. This is a different year, different team. If you've seen the costly mistakes they've made, you'd believe me. They were up versus the Vikings, but they blew it, and they should have won that game, and they just got beat by the Lions pretty good, and the Lions aren't anything special. And those are just a few things they've done.
' Life is cruel, and unnecessary , by our own definition of same '

Life on this planet was an accidental occurrence.Life is now 'conscious' of itself.Life is not 'nice' Life has a long history of 'self-harm'Life is 'worse' than celestial silence All this hurt and degradation for 'nothing'Life has no future that is 'better' than this.Life should be put out of its misery by a celestial accident.We call things cruel every day. Here is the definition of same...ie, play within these goal posts.1. bloodthirsty, ferocious, merciless, relentless. Cruel, pitiless, ruthless,Think 8th Amendment ie "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary." unnecessary: not necessary or essential; needless; unessential.
' Life is cruel, and unnecessary , by our own definition of same '

You have now fallen into hysterics, which is quite lamentable really, hfordneyI have you facts and sources to check them with. Did America drop a ridiculous amount of ordinance on Vietnam, did the Germans kill 6 million+ Jews, is The Us the biggest seller of pain in the world. You might not like what I am saying but you have not said that one word of it was untrue. It does not really matter as it would appear that you have completely lost the argument. You use the classic ad hominem as you demonize me for telling things as they are. There is little fresh stuff in your latest submission as you pray for the exit door. You brought up human altruism as being the flag behind which optimism can rally. I merely explained that this idea is BS. Now you want to divert to 'a Freudian unconsciousness' for want of something useful to say. Let us briefly explore this woodland ramble.Think about yourself. How much control have you over what you do.You have human abilities, that have been genetically inherited with which to attempt the obstacle course of life. Many of your organs work (hopefully) independently of your will , your heart, your lungs, your skin, your. You possess within you the genetic poison that will kill you. With this Deli Lunch you will now attempt to engage with an obstacle course that is impossible. Can you jump 2 meters into the air, can you lift a car, can you do without food for a year, without water for a month. Do you defecate, do your sexual glands become aroused without willful intent. Can you be objective about yourself. Have you a plan for yourself. Is it altruistic in nature. Would you cut corners if you had to, are you brave or cowardly. Are you lazy and do you tire easily. Are you happy. What did you do today. How good did it get. The primate intelligence is a cauldron of compromise and invention and we are without any of the nobler attributes that you suggest. I resent the suggestion that I would resort to cheap shots. If I stated any facts in this debate that are untrue, then please de-bunk them for the benefit of all.In conclusion, you want me to believe in man as a higher being capable of making the world something worthwhile. You have no history, no precedent and no projections for any of this but you are 'pissed off ' if I refrain from participation in your charade. Thanks for taking the debate. If there are any queries about my attitude here I will quite gladly attempt to explain them in comments. Good Bye, hfordneyps: apparently life is still cruel and unnecessary but more importantly the methodology for making this case is atrocious and that clarifies everything. I would like to give hfordney , the last word, ie'Principles and morals like compassion have to be believed in to become true. They may not be true of us now, or true of all life in the past, or true as to what others have done. But they are true of some.' hfordneyI would suggest that you read the Macbeth quote in comments instead if you want the truth.
Hume was more important in the development of philosophy than Kant

The resolution seems rather self-explanatory. Pro will make the argument that Hume was more important than Kant in the subsequent deveopment of philosophy. Con will make the opposite argument, being that Kant was more important than Hume.The definition of important will be in some sense subjective. However, the term should be used within reason. Kant refers to Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher.Hume refers to David Hume, the Scottish philosopher.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.5. BoP is shared between Pro and Con.
Age limit for trick-or treating

Hello,It appears you are reframing your argument to include the idea of parents accompanying their children. Though rather ambiguous as to their participation in the practice of "trick-or-treating." My contention is that age-limits should be set forth not to exclude parents from accompanying their children, younger children should have their parents with them. Rather, to exclude adults from going around and collecting free candy.This should not be enforced by law, but handled at the level of the communities themselves. Parents should not go up with their children to collect the candy, unless to grab it for their younger children, but can instead wait behind their children as they enjoy trick or treating. Points 1 and 2 will be argued next.
Age limit for trick-or treating

I will start out by saying that it is true that trick-or-treating's origin was originally a thing for children how ever things do evolve and now we have no problem with parents going with the children, and thus leading back to my original point of a fun experience for both the parents and children. I will also agree that you could alter the law so that parents or such could come with trick or treating, as I that is what I assume you are trying to get at with your third point, but there can and will be loopholes that would be found and used allowing people that would normal under the modified law not be able to trick-or-treat to go with a child or use some other method to obtain candy. This is my argument against the pro's points in speech.
Age limit for trick-or treating

Well poo... I somehow mistakenly thought that I would be promoting the idea of a no age limit. Since I have accepted, I will use my extensive ability to play the devil's advocate to see if I can win this debate. :)My argument for including an age limit is built on the below contentions1. The origin of trick or treating.2. It's continued tradition from the 1890s in Scotland to the 1940s in the USA.3. The method by which this limit could be enforced.Since I have pretty much no room to flesh out my individual points (due to the debate format) I cannot fully develop my points in this posting. As an adult, I purchase candy to hand out to children, not fellow adults who can also afford teh candy themselves.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman
Age limit for trick-or treating

Ones love for candy will stick around through the years. Trick-or-treating is a good way to fill that passion. Along with getting free candy, you express your creativity through a costume, mingle with friends, and adults who choose not to trick-or-treat but pass out candy to see costumes that can bring smiles to faces. With this law, may experiences will be ruined. One of the first would be the adult with his/her kid(s), turing the experience fro an adult from something enjoyable to a drag. To take candy from the kid would be steeling. Also most people do choose to stop trick or treating in their teen years anyway. Elderlies and people in hospitals look forward to this day, so if they can't trick-or-treat this fun day wont be available.
India should give Pakistan Kashmir for smooth bilateral relationships in future

The title of the debate is "India should give Pakistan Kashmir for smooth bilateral relationships in future" Pro is for Pakistan occupied Kashmir but what Pro fails to specify is in the case Pakistan is not allowed to takeover Kashmir should it be taken over by India or gain independence. India not allowing Pakistan does not by default mean it should be part of India there is a third option that the Kashmiris were granted the right to choose by the British, that is independence from both.India and Pakistan will have another kargil on their hands even if Pakistan gains control over Kashmir. The main cause of all the conflicts, the Pakistani sponsored 'Mujahids', are mostly composed of people that crossed over from the LOC and are people that belong to FATA(outsiders) they will be replaced by freedom fighters crossing over from India after all they are also quite keen on keeping Kashmir in their hands so overall the situation will remain the same. As for cultural ethos and socio economic structure they will be better off with India, where no one province can assert their dominance over others, instead of Pakistan, where the majority holder Punjab and Indian Muhajir have frequently throughout history tried to stamp out minority cultures of Baloch, Pukhtoon and Sindhis and keeping them underdeveloped so that they cannot gain control over the resources that come from those provinces and should have been thiers by right.
India should give Pakistan Kashmir for smooth bilateral relationships in future

I believe my worthy opponent has sidetracked the topic of the debate. The issue here is whether Kashmir should go to pakistan or be retained by india, and not whether kashmir should form its own government. Though convincing, but we hould stick to what the argument states. Anyway, since this is my concluding stand, i firmly believe that Pakistanshould have Kashmir if they, or in fact India too doesn not want another Kargil on their hands. Apart from reinstating peace in the lands, it would also profoundly increase cultural ethos while upgrading the socio-economic structure of the land.
India should give Pakistan Kashmir for smooth bilateral relationships in future

Giving Kashmir to Pakistan does not guarantee peace and security to Kashmir. India will not back down from its legally justified claim to Kashmir. Pakistan is not after Kashmir for land or resources but rather to for the sake of Pakistan Ideology. Should India give up Kashmir it will open new issues between the two countries. Pakistan still views the Indian provinces of East Punjab, Hyderabad and Jonagarh as rightfully Pakistani the resolution of Kashmir issue as proposed by Pro will further destabilize the relations between Pakistan and India. Kashmiris will still be dying at the hands of Pakistan and Indian forces/militant groups but it will bring Punjab, and Jonagarh at least to the same state as Kashmir. Indian Punjab will also now share a border with the mountainous region of Kashmir(Pakistan occupied) which will put forces fighting from plain areas of Punjab at a disadvantage somehow I don't think India will give that advantage quietly. Indian people are as zealous about Kashmir issue as Pakistani.The entire justification of Pakistani Intervention in Kashmir rests upon the claim of 'rescuing oppressed Muslims' from the cruelty they face at the hands of their 'Hindu Occupiers' remove that and Pakistan looses its claim. If Pakistan wages war against Independent Kashmir this mindset that they have developed will turn against Pakistan and will have the support of the people, which Pakistani sponsored militants currently do not have, and Indian support behind the scenes. Kashmir would be quite secure and able to fend off foreign invasions.Independent Kashmir is the best option agreed upon by all parties as stated in a UN resolution, but if Pro still wish for Kashmir to choose between India or Pakistan I think we should study history and compare the history of Pakistan occupied Balochistan and Indian occupied Hyderabad to see which is more peaceful."As my worthy opponent says, it is not the view of every resident in the state of Kashmir to join Pakistan, but a single person is only entitled to chose his/her future and not the future of the whole state. The majority is what decides the future, and as the situation stands in the present, Kashmir could really do with some peace and respite." This argument backfires on Pro. The majority wishes for an independent state of Kashmir it is a minority of people that support Pakistan including the Pakistan sponsored 'Jihad' groups. And as I stated Kashmir will be peaceful if it is granted independence from both Pakistan and India.
India should give Pakistan Kashmir for smooth bilateral relationships in future

.. Well to start off, the world is not all white and black, all is grey pertaining to bilateral relations between Indo-Pak relations. Bombs and bullets are are like food and water from them, sometimes the latter i not available while the former is. .. Historically speaking, Kashmir signed a memorandum to join India because it wanted, sorry absolutely required her help to fend off enemies trying to invade lands. In this quest for lands, can you even imagine how many people are losing their lives on a daily basis? How many humans(Army as well as residents) on both sides of the border do not live to see the night, or the light of the next day, that after having the protection of the Indian Army. Supposedly, I go with your concept of an independent nation, do you think Kashmir would have the ability or populace to fend of another attack, because as we see now, Pakistan is in a mad rage to occupy those lands, which according to them is theirs? How many people are going to die then? Mass genocide will be a confirmed future event and we would see Kashmiri lands soaking with the blood of her children. Do you opt for this? ? Hence, in these turbulent times, the only option Kashmir actually has is to take either side, India or Pakistan, and while the present shouts out loud, keeping Kashmir in India, is breaking its backbone and eliminating hopes for itself. That is if they do not want their death toll higher than the Holocaust. As my worthy opponent says, it is not the view of every resident in the state of Kashmir to join Pakistan, but a single person is only entitled to chose his/her future and not the future of the whole state. The majority is what decides the future, and as the situation stands in the present, Kashmir could really do with some peace and respite.
India should give Pakistan Kashmir for smooth bilateral relationships in future

I guess I can start right away.If you demand for India to withdraw from East Kashmir Pakistan should also withdraw from West Kashmir (Which includes Northern Areas like Gilgit, Chitral etc) in order for it to be fair and just.Also being majority Muslim does not mean that they want to be a part of Pakistan. Historically speaking the elected govt of Kashmir (majority Muslim headed by a Muslim) opted for independent Kashmir not Pakistan.