BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Life can be lived without god.

Today is my first day arguing and posting up debates on this website. I hope it can explore my own interests in religion (despite the fact that I am an atheist) and the sciences. I hope that this debate, in respect to its argument, will be brief. Contention One: What is good is good. It does not matter to me, or the master, if the cat is black or white, has ears or not, as long it catches its mouse and drinks its milk in good obedience. A life without belief in god exploits much of the same virtues as that in religion: honesty (as in an occupation), fidelity (especially in with marriage or the initiation of the priesthood) as in marriage and wedlock, faith and dedication to one's own morals and so on. A life without God is not entirely to be missed. The Lord Himself is distant, far removed from the common man to pray in the direst of times. Therefore, in the face of many challenges, including the hardships of adulthood, education and attending universities, economic setbacks, self-doubt, we (the people) must strive to help themselves. I do not think that any god would respond to a prayer from a man wanting his sink fixed. Nor is the fact that the unfaithful are not necessarily immoral. There are many who devote their lives to charity, to care for the sick, read for the poor, and so on--the same, or similar, activities to a well-meaning, religious man. I believe that immorality only comes with the choice of the individual to abuse his freedom of religion and faith to the points of forgetting morality or conscience in his own actions (such as in corruption, bribery, gambling--all lived in a typical lifestyle (without god)). There may be no time for many, in the present world, to regard for the elaborate rituals and prayers to god (though many have done so). However, as I argue again, that a life spent to goodness--even if not in religious truth--is still worth spent. If not, then is it possible to state that a woman who has saved many children from a fire, but does not fully believe in the existence of God, shall go to hell where she must pay penance for her "great sin"? (The topic is: Life CAN, not must, be lived with god.) I look forward for your counter-argument.
Life can be lived without god.

I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me with this death. I would like to note a few things prior to the onset of this debate. 1) My opponent's argument assumes that God exists. We see this in his various descriptions of who God is and how he behaves. 2) My opponent is both Pro and Instigator, therefore I need only cast reasonable doubt upon his argument in order to secure victory. 3) My opponent's resolution simply states "Life can be lived without god." Not "Life can be enjoyed without god" or "A person can live a moral life without god." This distinction will be important later in my argument. As my opponent has not defined which god we are referring to, but consistently refers to god in the singular, I am assuming he means the monotheistic God. For the sake of this debate, the distinction between the God of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism is irrelevant. The primary attribute that my argument rests upon is unanimous between the three. That attribute is that of omnipresence. In all three of these monotheistic religions, it is affirmed that God is omnipresent. According to dictionary.com, Omnipresent is an adjective that means "present in all places at the same time" I shall deliver my argument in the form o a syllogism. 1) God exists (Taken from my opponent's clear presupposition in his his opening argument) 2) God is omnipresent (Taken from the definitive attributes of the monotheistic God) 3) A person exists at a place (Common Logical Argument, not refuted by my opponent) 4) Therefore God exists at the place that a person is. (Logical Conclusion of syllogism). You see, if God is omnipresent then unless one does not exist... God is present or "with" that person. The only way that a person could "live without god" is to cease to exist... so therefore it is impossible for a person to do so. Might I remind the reader that my opponent did not define anything in his resolution regarding a specific mode of living. We are not debating if it is possible to live morally, enjoyably, or any other qualifying point. We are debating simply if it is impossible to live without God. Thank you to the readers for reading this debate, I urge you to vote according to the theoretical bounds that Pro established in his argument (namely that the monotheistic God exists).
Brett Favre is the greatest quaterback in the history of football.

Tom Brady is a prime example of a QB who had an offensive line full of rooks and didnt have a reciever over 5-11. But he won 3 superbowls. Farve has only won a single, and back then, the pack was a force all around. farves recievers may not be the greatest, but they arent terrible. Driver has been consistent, Furgie (i know thy dont have him anymore,but when they did) was consisently top 5, Terry Glenn as well, Javon Walker was always highly touted and Jennings is emerging. Dorsey and Green were always well appreciated backs. And his D has always been relativley solid. Hes had his chances. But only won once. Guys great, but the greatest ones win more often. Thats the reason Marinos endless talents cant be considered the greatest ever. In conclusion, its baseless to say favre had nobody helping him. Simply isnt true. The mans great, but isnt the best ever.
Brett Favre is the greatest quaterback in the history of football.

You named 4 quarterbacks with offensive lines that could make any quarterback look good. Brett Favre has had a sub par offensive line since 97'. Then look at his Wide Receivers, wanna point one out that is in the top 5, or 10, or even 15? You can't. Yet he still passed for 4100 yards this year. He doesn't have one target that gets him 1200 yards in a season. Yet he is still top 4 in passing yards. You mention Garrad having better stats this season, well, Favre had a better completion percentage and passed for 1600 yards more than Garrad. So Favre had a much better season. In fact, he had a better completion percentage than Peyton, Romo, and Garrad, and he went farther in the post season than them. Considering he is 38 and doesn't have a star behind him, I would say he is easily the greatest quarterback ever. You mention super bowls, yeah, he has only been to 2 and won 1. Dan Marino didn't even win 1, and he is considered one of the greats, but by your standards he is average. If you want to go by stats, fine, Favres stats are great, even this late in his career. If you want to go by heart, name a quarterback with more heart than Brett Favre, playing injured, playing sick, playing after his dad died, starting every game since his first start. His consecutive start record by a quarterback will never be broken. He may have the interception record, but he also has the TD record, the passing yards record, and the most games won record. So if winning makes a player great, Favre is the greatest. Wanna go by leadership? Favre took a team that barely won 50% of their games last season, then went 13-3 and almost took them to the super bowl and probably was the biggest sleeper team of the season. Your talking about a guy who has everything it takes to be a legend in this sport, all the intangibles, and at the quarterback position he is the greatest of all time, if not the greatest football player of all time. Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Peyton Manning, they are good, but they haven't had to play with an average or worse supporting cast in their careers! Favre makes his team and he has passed the test of time. Tony Romo is untested, Tom Brady is overrated(check him out in 3 years when his defense and o-line is gone), and Peyton Manning isn't nearly as exciting and has an aging cast which spells trouble for his later years. Favre has a young team, and throws the ball as hard now as he ever has, and seems to be getting more accurate with time. Give him a running game next year and the super bowl is his. Bottom line, no matter what your measure of greatness, Favre is it. These flash in the pan quarterbacks will never be great. But Favre is a hall of famer still playing the game. He is tough, he is smart, he is strong, he is a great leader, he is humble, and he plays for the love of the game. There is no quarterback in history greater than Favre. "Great works are performed, not by strength, but by perseverance."
Brett Favre is the greatest quaterback in the history of football.

Hes good, im not denying this. But hes not the best. Tom Brady, Peyton manning, tony romo and garrad all had better stats this year. Favres record is due to his long playing time, but dont count your chickens, peyton should break the TD record within 2 or 3 years (or at least is on pace) Tom brady has won 3 superbowls now under a similar siutation. Of course this last season, he had star talent. But during his 3 SB years, he had Troy Brown, David Patten and deion branch as his virtually, only recievers. this brings me to the most important reason that he cant trump brady, montana, bradshaw or any of those multi-winners. He has only one ring and that happend over a decade ago. And favres int. number isnt McCarthy's fault. Favre is the all time recrod holder for INTs
Brett Favre is the greatest quaterback in the history of football.

Name a quarterback that is more durable, improvises better, or is more exciting to watch! He makes the players around him better. He has taken a young team, who has a questionable offensive line, recievers that wouldn't start on any other team, absolutley no running game for more than 50% of the season, and finished the season 13-3! This is late in his career too when he is supposed to be over the hill. The best part is, he will probably be back next year. Claiming he isn't the best ever because he got picked off in his last game isn't a very good argument. You could easily blame that on the play calling. They have a running back that averages 7 yards a carry, just finished a game with 205 rushing yards on 27 carries, then they rush 8 times? Ofcourse you are going to throw interceptions when you are passing 90% of the time. That is McCarthy's fault, not Favre's.
The Purge would help lower crime if real

Since my opponent has forfeited this round, I will commence with my points. First of all, a "purge" would in no way decrease the crime rate if it was to be implemented in today's society. For example, 70% of all murders are NOT premeditated, meaning that 70% of ALL murders could happen at any time. Secondly, there would be revenge killings that would almost certainly take place after a murder has been committed in a family or gang. Let me put this in perspective, since this topic is very dystopian. If God forbidding one of your family members is harmed during the purge, it would be natural human nature for you to immediately want to get revenge, and why not at a time where he/she won't be suspecting...(AKA Not the Purge) Secondly, I am sure that my opponent will mention lower level crimes such as stealing,looting,etc. would be lowered, however, companies big and large would surely have insurance policies that would subsidize the amounts of goods stolen, meaning that if items were stolen, they would still be legally stolen after the purge, making it a crime. Whether they are caught or not doesn't make it a crime. This brings me to my third point, which is people would have their guard down during non-purge days, making stealing and violence more accessible and efficient. This element of surprise would surely be used by criminals and thugs alike.
Neither Debater Shall Break a Rule

(When a rule is broken, it is broken. You can only break a rule once. After that, the rule is not there. It is broken. I would only say, "My opponent has broken this rule." I would not need to cite multiple examples, as a rule only needs to be broken once to be broken completely. Therefore, none of my rules are null. Therefore, Rule #16 is a violation of #27, because it restricts my ability to establish a truth that opposes that of ToastOfDestiny's. Rule #14 is a violation of Rule #9. If I break the fewest rules, then ToastOfDestiny must default all categories to me. Rule #14 says otherwise. Thus, Rule #14 and Rule #9 contradict. Rule #9 wins, by Rule #1. Rule #14 is null and void. Rule #15 also might as well be null and void, by Rule #1. ToastOfDestiny is trying to create a situation in which he doesn't have to follow rules, but those rules hold power over Rule #15, so he still must follow them.) 29. Some men interpret nine memos. In all discussions, only mongeese has the power to interpret and define any words or phrases in anything posted by either player at any time in this debate without the need of sources, whether or not ToastOfDestiny thinks that it makes sense, although he may use sources to more accurately define a word or phrase. These definitions are posted at the bottom of his arguments, including which rule(s) they may apply to. 30. Anne, I stay a day at Sienna. In Round 3, ToastOfDestiny must write a ballad in iambic pentameter entitled, "Anne, I Stay a Day at Sienna," with perfect poetic grammar, about a man aged 17 named Toasted who spent one day at Sienna, from midnight on June 7 to midnight on June 8, using at least 6,000 characters, and using the following literary devices: foreshadowing, dramatic irony, climax, internal conflict, and personification. 31. "Now dine," said I as Enid won. ToastOfDestiny's ballad must include a character that says, at one point, "'Now dine', said I, as Enid won a slice." Definitions: 11. but not - and even 12. can only be broken once - is only counted once when tallying up rule violations when determining the victor of the debate 15. only - most definitely 15. if and only if - even if 16. establish - to make (a church) a national or state institution 16. truth - something that Barack Obama believes to be true, but isn't 16. without need for proof - requiring evidence that completely affirms beyond all doubt 29. interpret and define - decide the meaning of 30. ballad - http://en.wikipedia.org... 30. iambic pentameter - http://en.wikipedia.org... 30. Sienna - A fictional city located in Hyrule. 30. midnight - http://en.wikipedia.org... 30. using at least 6,000 characters - the characters used up by a combination of letters, numbers, punctuation marks, and sentences that add actual length (which does not include long placeholders such as a string of one character) to the ballad must exceed 5,999. 30. foreshadowing - http://en.wikipedia.org... 30. dramatic irony - http://en.wikipedia.org... 30. climax - http://en.wikipedia.org...(narrative) 30. internal conflict - http://www.musik-therapie.at... 30. personification - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Neither Debater Shall Break a Rule

Let it be noted that it is possible for me to break all of the rules mongeese has posted more than once. That is, I can make multiple rules which violate #27. That nullifies all of mongeese's current rules. Regardless, enjoy: http://www.youtube.com... 14. ToastOfDestiny only has to vote for mongeese in this debate if and only if mongeese does not post any more rules. 15. ToastOfDestiny only has to follow rules if and only if mongeese breaks every rule posted by ToastOfDestiny. 16. ToastOfDestiny has the power to establish the truth in this debate without need for proof, although this power dissipates outside of the debate.
Neither Debater Shall Break a Rule

26. Live on, Time; emit no evil. ToastOfDestiny's rules may not make any mention of time or anything directly related to time in any way in his rules. 27. Live not on evil deed, live not on evil. ToastOfDestiny may not make any rules that restrict mongeese's ability to do anything whatsoever. 28. Step on no pets! Every round, ToastOfDestiny must post a YouTube video in which a person steps on an animal.
Neither Debater Shall Break a Rule

I'm just following the trend - these look fun! 0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. With the exception of my first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. The victor is the player that broke the fewest rules. 9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions. 10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for ToastOfDestiny and 26-40 for my opponent. (End Foundation Rules) 11. All rules created by my opponent can apply to my ability to make rules, but not my ability to discuss or debate violations of rules. 12. Any rules created by my opponent can only result in one infraction from me (i.e. any rules they make can only be broken once). 13. My opponent should have at least one palindromic sentence in each of his/her rules which makes grammatical and logical sense. This means he/she cannot randomly insert palindromes, but that the palindrome should logically follow from the previous statement.
Neither Debater Shall Break a Rule

A copied rule cannot restrict me, because I was already restricted by the previous rule. Old English is different from new English. My opponent has conceded that Truths are Rules, so Truths are ignored. Here's how you count rule-breaks: If they broke the rule, it's a one. If they didn't, it's a zero. My opponent has lost nothing in his power to discuss and debate. 6,000 characters and 4,000 characters were clearly defined. Reposting that I must use palindromic sentences would not restrict me in the slightest. My opponent has not used the six thousand plus signs in his argument correctly. He talks about them, but never uses them. ToastOfDestiny may not write lists. He can still type them. "Nab a stiff" was a command, followed by a command to ban. It is related. Now, for my own list: 5. My opponent created ten rules in Round 4. (This is a sure thing.) 27. ToastOfDestiny restricted mongeese's ability to post rules that logically contradicted his own. Had he copied a previous rule, I would not be restricted. 14. ToastOfDestiny has to vote for mongeese if mongeese breaks fewer rules, not if mongeese stops posting rules. (This is also a sure thing.) 30. ToastOfDestiny failed to write a ballad in Round 3, and his excuse in Round 5 did not use the literary devices. (This is irrefutable.) 31. ToastOfDestiny failed to include said phrase in his ballad. (So is this.) 32. ToastOfDestiny tried to use his powers to give voters more reason to vote for him, benefiting him. (Undeniable.) 33. ToastOfDestiny did not use Old English, but new English. (True.) 34. ToastOfDestiny's ballad in Round 5 did not use the necessary characters. (Same here.) 35. ToastOfDestiny used three plus signs, not 6,000. My opponent has most definitely broken seven rules, and some voters might say that he broke nine. He only predicts that I broke four. My list beats his list. He broke more rules than me. I win. Vote CON. Also, note that on Rule 23, it may count as a rule-break, but because there is no rule that it broke, it isn't part of the tally in Rule 8, as there is no rule to associate the break with. 38. No misses ordered roses, Simon. ToastOfDestiny must change his profile picture to dat of a rose for at least half of da first third of the voting period of this debate. 39. Goddesses so pay a possessed dog. ToastOfDestiny must change his profile picture to dat of a dog for at least half of da second third of the voting period of this debate. 40. Flee to me, remote elf. ToastOfDestiny must change his profile picture to dat of an elf for at least half of da final third of the voting period of this debate. Anyways, great debate, Toast. It was great.
Drunk driving should be legal.

I stopped reading Yraelz's argument after he said "drunk driving should conditionally be legal for individuals who can pass a basic simulation." That's a good idea and I agree completely. It's also a concession, so the debate's over. I kinda feel bad for Yraelz, because it's a clever idea that deserves some merit, but it just can't be a winner in this debate.The resolution doesn't qualify the word "legal." It doesn't say drunk driving should be legal "conditionally," nor does it say drunk driving should be legal "unconditionally." There's no indication either way. The language is ambiguous. Generally-speaking, when there's an ambiguity in a definition, and the debaters haven't agreed to a specific definition, the word should be construed with its common understanding.I think the common understanding of "legal" includes "conditionally legal." When people say something's "legal," they usually include things that are "conditionally legal." For example, in common usage, we say that driving is "legal." Yet driving is only "conditionally legal," since it requires a license, which requires a test proving competence. Another example: practicing medicine. It's legal to practice medicine, but it requires a license. The same goes for practicing law, as well as a host of other professions. In common usage, when we use the word "legal," we usually include things that are "conditionally legal."So, I think you should go with my definition because (1) the word "legal" includes "conditionally legal" in common usage, and (2) Yraelz accepted the debate without my approval, precluding the option of agreeing to definitions before the debate started. Ultimately, it's Yraelz's fault that he didn't clarify the definitions before the debate. He should have asked for clarificaiton before accepting. I had intended to discuss definitions with interested challengers, but Yraelz's premature acceptance precluded that option. So unfortunately, now I'm left arguing definitions instead of drunk driving, and that's simply not the debate I intended or wanted.That's all I have to say on that matter.
Drunk driving should be legal.

I contend that the word, "approval" is debatable. As such I have accepted this debate. If we must argue about whether I have automatically forfeited then so be it, but I would prefer to mostly debate drunk driving, the legality of drunk driving, the word ,"should", and the word , "be". With no intention of making arguments against a thus far non-existent case, I would simply like to thank the proponent, FourTrouble, for accepting me into this debate. Also I would like to thank DDO, the cosmos, my current occupation, a series of fortunate circumstances, and FourTrouble's acceptance guidlines for their various levels of approval when pursuing this debate. Finally, I should say that I will be attempting to limit and trivialize strictly semantic based arguments while pursuing this debate (i.e. "drunk means 0.02 or above abv").With that I place 3 cards face down and start at gromp.
Is love money or sex better

Pro just asserts that love is better without backing it up. My contentions still stand. More sex with more partners tends to be the best way to go . It relives stress, helps you focus, and you are not tied down. In addition to that money is a key part in a relationship. This was the biggest argument of this debate. Without money relationships tend to fail, so often times you need money in order to make "love" work. Often times it is considered one of the most important factors in a relationship. ( http://www.slice.ca... ) , and if not the most important one of the most. Basically money makes relationships turn without out love won't last all the time. So i contend that most of the times money is a major contribution to love, so money is more important than love. Pro drops both of these