BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All unadressed arguments in a debate should be considered concessions

Ok this is simple all I need to do to defeat this is present a simplified debate and let the people here decide whether each side has conceded. pro: god exists god defined: an all loving all powerful all knowing creator of the universe all things that begin to exist have a cause The universe began to exist the universe has a cause That cause is god Con: If a all loving being exists,evil cannot exist evil exists Therefore an all loving being does not exist. Therefore god does not exist. Now that is a simplified debate. It is simply idiotic beyond belief to believe that either side conceded the points of the other. The audience has to decide whose argument was better. The idea that not rebutting the argument makes for a concession is ridiculous. The audience has to decide which argument was better. A person may feel that their own arguments are more worth while then to spend there entire time debating the other persons arguments. It is completely up to the person who is debating whether they need to address the opponents arguments or present there own new arguments against the point. Being this is the case, the audience is obligated to judge the merits of an argument.
All unadressed arguments in a debate should be considered concessions

Resolution As Pro my burden in this debate will be to defend the logic of the following statement: "You did not address his arguments, that means you concede them. That is how debate works." Cerebral_Narcissist Rules My opponent may make his first argument in round 1, or may simply utilize round 1 for acceptance. The burden of proof will be shared. The participant that makes the stronger case for or against this statement wins. No Semantics. Any further clarification of the resolution should be defined by referencing the discourse of the following link:http://www.debate.org...
All unadressed arguments in a debate should be considered concessions

I will remind my opponent of the resolution: “All unaddressed arguments in a debate should be considered concessions” Should be considered by who? While I think this is self explanatory and was made blatantly clear throughout this debate, allow me to remind my opponent of one of the statements I made in the last round: “A concession does not mean that the debater agrees with the unaddressed argument, it means that the voters must interpret it that way for the sake of judging.” This entire debate has focused on how debates should be judged by the voters. Now Con is trying to claim that my argument is invalid by waiting for round 3 to present a definition that has nothing to do with the voters. Con has put no effort into this debate and relies on the audience here to refute my arguments for him. Since none of my arguments have been addressed there is nothing left for me to say. Had Con presented an intelligent counterargument we might have accomplished something with this debate. Instead the only accomplishment here was in showing further why debating him is so pointless.
All unadressed arguments in a debate should be considered concessions

I am going to make this short and sweet not bothing with his stupidity. concede-To acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit. See Synonyms at acknowledge. http://education.yahoo.com... In my example neither side is admitting it is true. Let me explain. The conclusions are mutually exclusive. The one guy is arguing god exists. He can not concede the argument that concludes therefore god does not exists. The other guy is arguing god does not exist. He is still arguing that god does not exist and hence does not concede. He does not have to address the argument, but that in no way means he is admitting it true,just or proper.
healthcare

Why are so many people think that cutting money from our health care is okay? Its not! So many hospitals are so cheap because of this. Nurses doctors can't find a decent job in a hospitals. Why is this happening? It's because the government . It needs money for the war to fight why? We have nothing to fight for. And the government has already took money from us through taxes and other cost it should not evoking our health care problems at all. People are dieing because he hospitals are so cheap the money is cut and only a few doctors and nurses have work.
On balance, internet does more harm than good

Hello. I am Radicalguy44 and I will be debating PRO for the following resolution: On balance, internet does more harm than good. In this debate, I will prove that on balance, there are more dangers, than beneficial s when using the internet. Definitions: On balance = One proving that there is more of one than the other Internet = Online source in which people communicate with each other Harm = Danger CONTENTION 1 : The internet has a lot of threats in it. One of them being viruses. According to Norton Symantec, they can not cover every single virus that is out there, because some are just too strong. It's true, there are some viruses that can't be put off, and some viruses that even put you in danger of seeing inappropriate stuff. You may have not been doing anything incorrectly, but harm can still come your way. SUBPOINT A: Not only are there viruses, but there are also inappropriate websites that reach the incorrect eyes (i. e = minors) These children suddenly get these pictures in their computer, and out of curiosity, fall under the trap put in. This is not something we want to continue, but merely something we want to stop. If this doesn't prove internet is dangerous, nothing does. CONTENTION 2: Excess of hours spent on the computer damages health. This includes internet sites. This proves also that internet does a lot of harm. Sure, these may be productive hours, but hey, it's still harming your health Finally, I'd like to say that all the PRO has to do is prove that internet does more harm than good, and I am not forced to disagree that internet does some good.
On balance, internet does more harm than good

Hello kind sir. Welcome to debate.org I will first like to give a road map of what I'll do. First I"ll attack my opponents case and then defend mine. 1) My opponent's value is Human Life which he said is related because we are all humans. This is arbitrary to the argument presented. With or without the internet, we'll still have human life. His value actually helps me, since humans are damaged with the internet, by getting abusive pages. 2) The criteria for my opponent does not stand either for the next two reasons. One, parents CAN NOT be supervising childrens' activities online. Also, even with parental controls, inappropriate websites pop up, so parental supervision does not stop the internet by harming others. 3) "Contention 1:the internet is used to communicate with people around the world Like if you try to call someone from Brazil to china chances are that you won't be able to. But with Internet you email anyone around the world" My opponent says that the internet is used to communicate with people around the world. Obviously this has it's setbacks. There are easy ways to fake one's identity, therefore his contention 1 does not stand. There are way too many dangers when chatting online 4) "Contention2:If we don't use something,chances are that we will lose it For example if you don't use your brain by thinking alot it will kind of make you dumber" This is VERY arbitrary to what we are speaking about. The point is not to eliminate the internet completely, but just merely to state that is harmful. There are good things about the internet, just that the harm overpowers the benefits. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now on to defend my case 1) "that is where my criterion comes into play if there are parents present they can put safe search and watch that kids aren't seeing inappropriate stuff and also he said "One of them being viruses." with parental supervision parents can tell kids not to open emails and stuff." That is not the point. Sometimes these images pop up instantaneously, and parental controls won't do anything about it. You'll still get it, neverhteless 2) "he used a computer or some sort of electronic to write his case and that goes against his contention2. His value and criterion are non-existent." I do not see how this contradicts my point. I am not trying to prove that the internet is 100% bad, just that it does more harm then good. Therefore using a computer is not contradicting my point at all When we look at all the things that the internet has to offer, we'll find good things, but a lot more harmful things, that my opponent has failed to attack Please vote PRO! ~Radicalguy44
On balance, internet does more harm than good

Hello I am Antonio12.I actually know my opponent(Marin) and this my first debate on Debate.org On balance, internet does more harm than good. Definitions: On balance = One proving that there is more of one than the other Internet = Online source in which people communicate with each other Harm = Danger First I will attack my opponent then state my case. I have to show that the Internet can be good at least one time not that it is always good. First I will state my case,then attack my opponents Now I will state my case. Value:human life-the life of human Criterion:parental supervision-that parents are always present when kids use the computer My value human life is related to this case because words like kids ,minors,and parents will be used and they are all humans. My criterion parental supervision is used to avoid kids seeing things they shouldn't see Contention 1:the internet is used to communicate with people around the world Like if you try to call someone from Brazil to china chances are that you won't be able to. But with Internet you email anyone around the world. Contention2:If we don't use something,chances are that we will lose it For example if you don't use your brain by thinking alot it will kind of make you dumber. My opponent stated in his contention 1"Not only are there viruses, but there are also inappropriate websites that reach the incorrect eyes (i.e = minors)" that is where my criterion comes into play if there are parents present they can put safe search and watch that kids aren't seeing inappropriate stuff and also he said "One of them being viruses." with parental supervision parents can tell kids not to open emails and stuff. My opponent stated in his contention 2 "Excess of hours spent on the computer damages health. This includes internet sites. This proves also that internet does a lot of harm. Sure, these may be productive hours, but hey, it's still harming your health" This is where parental supervision comes in parents can limit computer time so your health isn't harmed. Also my opponent is sort of contradicting his contention 2 because he said"Sure, these may be productive hours, but hey, it's still harming your health" he used a computer or some sort of electronic to write his case and that goes against his contention2. His value and criterion are non-existent. Vote for Neg
Christians are illogical.

To the audience: Readers and voters, I assure you that I regret what this debate has become as much as you do. I was sincerely hoping for serious, quality argumentation on this interesting topic and apologize for the disappointment. To my opponent: As I said in round two, your counter argument is off-topic and irrelevant. To demonstrate this, I will, for the purposes of this debate, concede that every single non-Christian, past and present, is utterly and hopelessly irrational as you assert and I furthermore concede that I myself am a pitiful fool of a man and am completely incapable of answering any of the questions you posed in round one. None of this, however, has anything to do with the argument I presented to you in round one. My original argument is still valid and it is still sound, and unless you can debunk it, Christians are illogical. In conclusion: To recap, I argue that Christians are illogical and my opponent argues that non-Christians are irrational. The topic of the debate is “Christians are illogical. ” You do the math.
Christians are illogical.

My opponent’s counter argument is a red herring and is completely beside the point. Whether or not non-Christians are irrational is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is whether or not Christians are illogical. It may very well be the case that non-Christians are irrational AND Christians are illogical, in which case the vote goes to Pro. As such, my opponent will need to address my argument. My opponent demonstrates the circular reasoning my argument is based on: “Yes, I believe that the bible is true because God says its true. ” The problem is that Christians believe what they believe about God because they have presupposed his existence when reading the Bible. Because they buy into this fallacious logic, they can safely be called illogical.
Christians are illogical.

I am going to simply counter this claim by saying that non-Christians are irrational.The little rationality that they do have they cannot account or justify without reducing themselves to irrationality. Some questions for my opponent are what does he base the laws of logic on?Why or how does identity hold through change? How does he account for the law of excluded middle? Is reality static or is it always changing? Yes, I believe that the bible is true because God says its true. However, my argument is if you reject that claim then you cannot account or justify any other claim. Thanks.
Christians are illogical.

I will be arguing that "Christians are illogical." Definitions: Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus[1]. Illogical: not observing the principles of logic[2]. My argument: Christians believe in Biblical Inspiration. Biblical Inspiration is illogical. If one espouses illogical arguments, he/she is illogical. Christians are illogical. Biblical Inspiration is defined as the doctrine in Christian theology that the authors and editors of the Bible were led or influenced by God with the result that their writings may be designated in some sense the word of God[3]. Argument of Biblical Inspiration: The Bible says that God exists.What the Bible says is true, because it is God’s Word.God exists. This argument presupposes (in the second premise) the truth of its own conclusion and thereby commits the fallacy of circularity. As such, it can be deemed illogical, and anyone who believes it can also be deemed illogical. Conclusion: Christians believe in the Bible because they believe in God, and they believe in God because they believe in the Bible. This is circular reasoning and is illogical. As such, Christians are illogical. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marriage Equality: There is no sufficient argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

Thanks, KeytarHero, for accepting! Here's my rebuttal to your claims. 1.) My opponent has left himself open for the usual rebuttal: Infertility. According to Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC.gov), "About 6% of married women 15-44 years of age in the United States are unable to get pregnant after one year of unprotected sex". [1] http://www.cdc.gov... If marriage is constructed based on the ability to procreate, it should only be available to fertile couples. Having read a similar argument in the Obergefell v. Hodges transcripts, I can't resist quoting Justice Ginsburg"s question: "Suppose that I"m a 70 year old woman..." I could go further, but for the sake of characters, won't. 2.) Society has several reasons to promote same-sex marriage. I. With the procreation argument refuted, what possible reason does a nation have in denying same-sex couples the right to be recognized as spouses? II. Morality aside, Gay Marriage does benefit society in an economic sense. According to GayMarriage.ProCon.org, "Gay marriages can bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments. Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances and decreases in costs for state benefit programs.". [2] http://gaymarriage.procon.org... 3.) Children are not suitable evidence for permanence. Consider divorced couples who must battle over custody for their children. 4.) The definition of marriage HAS changed over the years. Consider the fact that interracial marriage was once illegal. Allowing gays to marry will not "poison the well" and does not create the possibility of incestuous relationships or polygamy. Marriage is considered the legal binding of monogamous relationships. Beyond that, any reliable definition of natural marriage is refuted when DOMA was struck down. With the separation of church and state, religious reasons are also refuted. For the sake of characters, I"ll end here.
Marriage Equality: There is no sufficient argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

My space is limited, so let’s go. What is Marriage? 1) In order to discover who can be married, we have to discover what marriage is. Marriage is not something malleable, that we can change. Marriage is an objective thing with a true definition. Marriage is a comprehensive union between man and wife with a special link to children. Throughout all of human history, even in homosexuality-celebrating cultures, marriage has *always* been seen as being about the natural possibility of children. The only relationship that produces children is this relationship. Indeed, this is the only relationship in which having children actually *enhances*, rather than hindering, the relationship. 2) Society has no vested interest in promoting same-sex marriage. It *does* have an interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage because these are the relationships that produce children, and a low-stress marriage with a mother and father is the best situation in which children can be raised to be productive members of society, replacing those who are too old to work or dying off. 3) The only reason that marriage should have the expectation of permanence is because of children.4) So labeling this as “marriage equality” is an attempt at poisoning the well. The marriage debate is not about equality. With natural marriage, homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one has a right to marry just anyone they fall in love with. If marriage is something we can just define, there is no principled reason to exclude family members from marrying, plural marriages, etc. I was on the fence about same-sex marriage. My reason for opposing it now is because I discovered that the revisionists have no argument for why we should allow same-sex marriage. The only people with an argument are those supporting natural marriage. The same-sex marriage supporters rely on demonizing the opposition to support their case.
Marriage Equality: There is no sufficient argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

This debate will analyze reasons for and against homosexuals and their right to marry. The argument is structured with the understanding that there are no sufficient reasons to deny homosexuals the right to marry. There will be 5 Rounds Round 1: Challenge and Opening Arguments Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Rebuttal Round 5: Final Rebuttal and Closing Statements. LET"S KEEP THIS CIVIL, BUT IMPASSIONED. Opening Statement: With the forthcoming decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, the debate over marriage equality has never been more pertinent. However, upon reviewing the transcripts of the oral arguments, I came to the conclusion that not only did the defendants fail to address the questions asked in the brief, they also failed to provide a sufficient reason explaining why homosexuals should not have the right to marry. It is my intention to challenge any argument submitted against marriage equality, proving there is no sufficient reason for the government (and the Supreme Court) to deny the national legalization of gay marriage.
Empathy, Race and Upbringing" are important attributes for a Supreme Court Justice Nominee

Empathy, race and upbringing do not qualify a person to any appointment in the court system. It is vital that an appellate judge set aside any personal prejudices and uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Pres. Obama's first pick, Judge Sonia Sotomayer, is the antithesis of impartiality. She believes that her personal experience may guide her to a different, if not better conclusions than "white males". This type of approach to law serves only to empower the federal government with authority to govern morality at their will.
The Gospel

Thanks, also, for yours. Indeed it was Luke. I should have taken the time to research that. No matter, Luke was then Inspired to write that one must be 'ordained'. Obviously this doesn't mean that each of us must become a legal minister, but rather that we each are obligated to become baptised, as according to the Gospel. Corinthians 15: 1 - 4, also states that "...I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you..." The Gospel thus also includes that which Jesus has preached (or lived), in many cases. And Jesus has adamantly supported, preached and instructed upon Baptism. As such, it is an obligation of the Gospel In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus commands all people, in becoming His disciples, to be taught His word and be baptized. It is thus an essential part in becoming a Disciple of Christ. You are correct about it actively bringing Salvation to those whom peruse it. But this does not mean that Baptism isn't mentioned (and obligatory) in the Gospel. In fact, Baptism has a strict protocol in which has been specified clearly in the Bible. If it were so trivial, why would God go to such bother? Baptism is most assuredly not necessary in becoming a Christian, but it is obligatory in becoming a sound Disciple of Christ. Thanks for a wonderful debate!
The Gospel

Thank you for your insightful response. I will begin by saying that my argument is not about the different time periods the Gospel was proclaimed in, but rather that baptism is not part of the Gospel. You seemed to concede that it was not in the Gospel that Abraham received and I totally agree with that assessment. The Biblical definition for " Gospel " is " a good message" or " the good news". I agree that baptism furthers one's walk with Christ AFTER they have been saved and is part of the believer's sanctification. Regrettably I must inform you that the writer of Acts was Luke. You seemed a little uncertain with your statement. An unmistakably clear definition of the Gospel is given in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4. you will find here that It is the preaching of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for Salvation. when the Gospel is preached, It has the power to bring this Salvation to those that believe It ( Romans 1:16). The first message that was preached after Jesus arose from the grave was consistent with this definition as you will find in Acts 2:14-36. If you follow the other preachers during this time, you will find this consistency in their message also. The strongest evidence against baptism was given by the same man who defined the Gospel as previously mentioned. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul penned these words; " For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel". The Gospel that He himself had received and preached, and the church at Corinth had received and stood upon did not include baptism. Unlike the clear definition of and exclusion of baptism in the Gospel that has been demonstrated, there is no clear inclusion of baptism as part of the Gospel given in the Bible that can be cited. Thank you kindly.