BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Theism is perfectly valid

MY response is the same as to ZMIKECUBER!!! You lose!!Not going to get into the same old which came first, god or the universe argument, Yada Yada!You have no hard evidence a god exists. If you did, then WHERE IS YOUR NOBEL PRIZE?!?!?Regardless, I DO NOT put the possibility of an existence of a god or gods at zero (just highly unlikely), and considered myself primarily agnostic until recently. Even IF there is a god or gods, there is ZERO hard evidence that god or gods concerns itself in human affairs or intervenes the physical world or communicates with humanity in any way. That makes ALL RELIGIONS THE CREATIONS OF PEOPLE!!So, go ahead and assume there is a god or gods out there. I have no problem with that. What causes problems is when people arrogantly say they know what a god wants, thinks etc. Lets see:1. hard evidence a god or god intervenes in human affairs or the physical world in any way2. hard evidence to prove this god or gods has/have certain characteristics3. hard evidence this god or gods has/have communicated their thoughts to humanity in any wayIf you cannot show hard evidence for the above, you admit all religions are based on pure speculation and the Abrhamic god in particular is a lie created by men.Can we agree on that point?? If so, go ahead and assume that a god or gods exist. Just admit that it is pure speculation and you have no idea what that god or gods are like even if they do exist and that all religions are the creations of men.
Theism is perfectly valid

I'd actually like to go THREE rounds with you. First, I don't remember anything in the terms about debating WHICH religion is real, I was just arguing that theism in general is perfectly rational. The subject of which religion, however, needs its own debate. What I'm going to use for evidence for God is a classic argument used by many theists. 1. The universe had a beginning 2. Therefore, the universe had a cause 3. So, the universe has a beginning and something to cause it While God cannot be directly observed, a rational case can be made for Him through indirect observation. See, there's evidence that the universe is expanding; so if we trace the process of expansion back, we arrive to the conclusion that the universe was once an extremely dense cosmological singularity. This is what we consider the beginning of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, it must have had some sort of cause. I believe, with the complexity of the universe today, that it must have been the result of an intelligent outside agency. The reason I say this is that if you say there is no God, or no first cause, that would leave you with no other explanation for the beginning of the universe. Because if the universe wasn't caused to begin with, or is infinite, that would create a paradox. We have evidence that the universe has a beginning, and that time and space haven't always been here. So if you say the universe is infinite, you contradict the evidence of the Big Bang; and if you say the universe created itself out of nothing, you ignore the fact that everything that has a beginning must have a cause, as that would imply that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Of course God can't be directly observed; but like I said, a reasonable case can be made for theism by indirect observation. And plus, there would have to be an intelligent agent to, at the very least, initially generate the first codes of information. If that happened, the rest may possible take care of itself for a little bit, but ultimately would need God to help guide such a process and help build the universe. For another example, if you read this argument I'm writing, would you just assume it came from nothing, or would you think that an intelligent agent wrote it? Same goes for artificial intelligence, or computer simulated worlds with AI humans. And for your last question, we all have free will to decide whether or not to follow Him. I don't know why you're so angry if you don't even believe in Him. Take it away, Invisibledeity.
Theism is perfectly valid

Alright, forget what I said earlier. How would you like to debate someone experienced in defending theism? I think everyone's had enough of your ranting, so I'm going to step forward and challenge you. If you're so cocky, then perhaps you'll consider my challenge. I have the burden of proof in this debate, and you'll try to rebut my arguments. There are 3 rounds, 2 days to argue, and a voting period of 10 days.
Cheerleading is a Sport

Thank you for accepting my argument. Also, I appreciate that you recognized that cheerleading's athleticism and skill requirement. I would like to start off responding to the information you provided by describing the types of cheerleading. recreational- usually has equal purpose of competition against other teams and cheering for football- non profit or profit organizations high/middle school cheer: non competitive- some schools have cheerleading teams that only cheer for other sports such as basketball and football competitive- Some schools have a specific team that only competes in competitions, and do no "cheering" for other sports mixed- many schools have cheer teams that do both cheers for football and competition college- mix of competition and cheerleading for other sports. pro-dances only for NFL teams all star/prep- cheerleading gyms (profit or non-profit) that only go to many competitions to face off against other teams, and most teams have a main goal to get to "The Cheerleading Worlds" or "The Cheerleading Summit", large competitions with the best of the best teams, which you need to win a bid, or invitation in order to go. Each type that does compete does this at their own types of competitions, not against each other. (highschools separate, allstar separate, college separate, and recreational. The AACA does make a good point with the argument that cheerleading's primary purpose is not competition, making it not a sport. However, this statement is not true for all types of sports. While, it would be tricky for dealing with categories where, in one division at a competition you may have some teams that also cheer for sports teams and teams that do not, one thing that I know to be true is that all star cheerleading is in the "current format" that the primary purpose is to compete. Also, who is to say that the primary purpose of teams that compete and raise spirit, do not have the primary purpose of competing and a secondary purpose of cheerleading for other sports' teams. Because, competitions do seem to be the main focus for those cheerleading teams who are competitive. In conclusion, all star cheerleading is definitely competitive, and fit the second element of a sport, as defined by the Womens' Sport Foundation, while the recreational, high school and college remain controversial, and a subject of which I do not have a clear opinion, or enough information of. I do not wish to validate or deny pro cheerleading as a sport, because that is a different thing all over. For now, I would like to focus more on all star cheerleading, defined as "Competitive cheerleading is when cheer squads compete against each other at a competition. At a typical cheerleading competition, teams perform a 2 and a half minute routine with music that includes stunts, jumps, tumbling." by Varsity, a cheerleading company. http://www.varsity.com...
Cheerleading is a Sport

Thank you for offering to host it. First, I have mad respect for all of the athleticism of cheerleaders. You’re asked to be part dance line and part gymnast. It takes great athleticism, strength flexibility, many years of training, and there are competitions. But nobody cares what I think. I have an opinion, but it means nothing. Since I’m not involved in cheerleading in any way, I could be considered both “impartial” and “uninformed. ”You are involved in Cheerleading. So that makes your opinion “informed” but also “Biased”. And since we are in a debate and not an opinion poll, nobody should care what you think either. So I set about finding a source that is both “informed” and “unbiased”. Maybe a governing body that sets policy and rules for Cheerleading. I found the American Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators (. http://www.aacca.org...).They receive this question frequently. There are actual legal, insurance, Title IX at the college level, and funding distinctions between management of “sports” and “activities” in schools and leagues. Therefore, correct classification of Cheerleading has a much greater impact than bragging rights among participants. The official position of the AACCA is that Cheerleading is an “Athletic Activity” and the participants are “Student Athletes”. [1]The AACCA states that Cheerleading fails to meet the qualifications of a sport:"Cheerleading as a SportCheerleading in its current format, does not meet the second criteria . .. . The primary purpose is not competition, but that of raising school unity through leading the crowd at athletic functions. "The AACCA classifies Cheerleading as an “Athletic Activity”"The Best Category for CheerleadingIt is the position of TheAmerican Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators that cheerleading is in a new, developing category called "athletic activity". This group can also include dance and drill teams and marching bands, all of which share the special balance between school spirit functions and athletic competitions. ”[1] . http://aacca.org...If your own governing body doesn’t support your premise, I’m afraid I cannot either.
The boy scouts should only allow boys

I have no problem whatsoever with boys joining the girl scouts. I do however have memory problems and cognitive dysfunction that may have caused me to not notice it.I showed you what the BSA has as the official statement of what it is about, I think that is a little more accurate of a sorce.It is extremely unlikely that any girls would share tents with guys. Also, this isn't exactly the only case of boys and girls camping together. Some schools have educational camping trips for instance, and those are always co-ed. Summer camps are another example of that. Honestly if someone can study and behave around girls, then I bet they can manage.To be a leader you have to learn to manage many kinds of people including the opposite sex. Though you keep saying that "the kind of stuff they do works best in a single-gender group" you are failing to explain why.It says "Boy Scouts" which can easily be seen as designed around boys, not just the idea of for boys only. I'm not saying that boy scouts should reimagine itself just to satisfy the girls, but rather that girls who like it as is shouldn't be refused.Not all children have parental support at all, or near enough to change an organization. Not to mention many parents are very busy and simply don't have the time.Becoming a cadet still isn't the same thing, the biggest differences being the age range and the fact that being a cadet ties into school and may not be in the best interest of the individual for a long term job or goal.The quote means that there is more to something than a name. I was meaning that you get to caught up on the word "boy" in "boy scouts"This won't destroy the boy scouts, infact it is doubtful all that many girls will even want in. Only a handful have tried to. The troop that this girl unoffcally belonged to didn't seem to care, and when I asked my brother if he cared he said, "Not really, I mean the girl scouts sucks"https://www.npr.org...I actively watched those channels for a while I mean, and while they talk about many legitimate issues they just as feminists fall victim to in group out group and confirmation bias.One last thing to add that I sadly haddent thought about, is when the idea of girl vs boy gets gray. The title of this debate is, "The boy scouts should only allow boys" but intersex exists as well. Like Androgen insensitivity syndrome, Gonadal Dysgenesis, Turner syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome. In other words not everyone falls under the category of male or female.
The boy scouts should only allow boys

I see no issue with allowing girls in boy scouts. I find it odd that you said "perhaps even early pregnancy" as if that is worse than molestation, but I'll not get into that. Young boys and girls are exposed to each other constantly, boy scouts doesn't affect that at all even without girls. Boy scouts is supposed to help boys learn respect and to treat people well in general, correct? Than that is the last place sexual abuse is likely to happen. I know people who were sexually abused at school, but that doesn't mean that schools should be segregated. Boy scouts isn't equal to girl scouts, as much as people like to push that idea. Boy scouts, if you stick to it, can increase your job opportunities and collage choose, but girl scouts does no such thing. At least not near the same extent. Therefore, without allowing girls into boy scouts, you limit a route of opportunity to a single sex. The military is no replacement either, as the military puts your life on the line. Not to mention the boy scouts itself exists for them to have fun and learn things, not to paint a sign on a tree house saying, "No girls allowed."The girl scouts also have age peramiders to reach diffrent ranks which is frustrating for many whom find themselves wanting to do more (Actually why both my older sisters quit). Girl scouts also has a different emphasis in general than boy scouts, of which many young girls find more appeling.In some cases there may not be a girl scout troop available in someones area, and boy scouts may be the only available opportunity. Or may just not fit in, I know I wouldn't of.I would avoid using youtube channels in general as sources, especially those ones.Boy Scouts of America made the decision for a reason, and it is more than their right to do so.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.theguardian.com...http://time.com...https://www.scouting.org...http://www.girlscouts.org...
The boy scouts should only allow boys

The boy scouts should only be allowing boys because it's made for young boys to sit away from sexual desires and also become men. Allowing girls in there will defeat the whole purpose of boy scouts. Considering this, the name itself suggests it's only for boys, it's not just "Scouts", "Mixed scouts", etc. Allowing girls in there is plain wrong. Not only that, this will allow teenagers mix together at the peek of their sex drive or desire (13-18). It's a bad idea to send people of both genders together. They will end up with illicit relations or worse, molesting, perhaps even early pregnancy. We also have the girl scouts available for girls to join, but people still complain about the boy scouts not allowing girls. But they prefer the boy scouts as they do survival and leadership skills. But they can join the military instead. [1] http://motto.time.com... [2] https://youtu.be... [3] https://youtu.be...
The boy scouts should only allow boys

I will argue that the boy scouts should avoid allowing girls in because of the name and the purpose. Con will prove that they should continue to allow girls in there (and yes, girls are allowed there now.) Rules: 1) No trolling 2) No insults/curse matches 3) No ad hominem 4) Try to collect reputable sources Rounds: 1) Acceptance 2) Opinion 3) Rebuttals 4) Defence
Logic beats Morality

I'd like to say my opponent has made some excellent points, I believe what my opponent is referencing is the moral sphere which looks something like this. It illustrates the way life prioritizes life. It guides us and all sentient life on our evolutionary path to the present day. in which extremely intelligent life thrives. Simply put these values were shared by all sentient life, and are obvious from the actions of sentient life. If this is what we deem as morality which I happily accept for this debate then it's apparent that morality has enabled us to be sentient, or in other words Morality has enabled us logic. Helping prove my point, not that morality is necessarilly superior to logic but that they inevitably go hand-in-hand. Seeing as The debate is Logic beats morality my opponent has thrown the burden of proof on himself/herself to show this. To further my point as extremely intelligent beings we now have the choice to ignore the Moral Sphere and prioritize whatever we wish which to serve us in the future (ie:preserving our environment). In fact, I have seen quite the rant from a vegan in which she prioritizes the biosphere over her fellow human beings, in which she presented some fair points althought in my opinion she presented them angrily and poorly. [1]Morality offers a safeguard and provides guidance for dilemma's in which situation logic would otherwise fail the individual. Logic and Morality go hand-in-hand and I have come to the understand that logic can never outright defeat morality. I credit my reading of The Moral Arc, an excellent read which reminds me of my deceased grandfather who served as a police officer in life. It mentions a beautiful example with the Prisoner's Dilemma. My preference of this particular dilemma, besides showing an example where logic fails an individual is because it's easy to understand 1. If you confess but the other prisoner does not you go free and he gets three years.2. If the other prisoner confesses and you do not, you get three years and he goes free.3. If you both confess, you each get two years.4. If you both remain silent, you each get one year.(Credit for this example goes out to Michael Shermer and his book the Moral Arc) [2]In this example using common logic (The Moral Sphere) the two prisoners would be doomed to betray each other for self-preservation however this would backfire. The result is both prisoners Garnering a total of four years in Jail, where as if the prsoners believe in a morality as simple as "gang mentality" neither will betray the other resulting in a total of two years in jail. [1] [2] https://www.barnesandnoble.com...
Logic beats Morality

Mankind was given the gift to think for themselves, through this gift we have advanced far beyond any other creature's capable of. It is because of the ability to make decisions that mankind has prospered thus far. But I believe, in order for man to continue moving forward, he must set aside morals and depend on logic and rationality in making decisions. Because, as I have stated before; Morality is biased and can be clouded by emotions. Logic on the other hand, carefully considers variables and thoroughly analyzes the problem in order to come up with the best possible solution. Though in some cases it may not seem ethical, such is a trivial matter when one talks about the greater good. For Example: When you are in a situation where you are given a choice to either spare the life of a loved one or the lives of a few random people. Using morals, one would have a hard time choosing between the two, but most often times you would choose to save your loved one correct?
extra recess should be banned

im not supporting recces What's your favorite subject?" asks the ancient joke. "Recess!" is the reply. But, today, some students -- and teachers -- might not find the joke funny. That's because some cities, like Atlanta, have eliminated or cut back on recess in elementary school to free more time for instruction. So why cut recess? With widespread stress being put on standardized tests throughout the United States, students need to prepare by spending more time on academics, the general argument goes. The extra time has to come from somewhere, and recess seems like a good place to trim. "The big thing in this country now is standards," Marie Diamond, president of the Connecticut Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, stated in a recent Hartford Courant interview. "We've raised the bar; our standards are higher," says Diamond. At the same time, she adds, "The majority of kids need some time for recess, just like people in offices need coffee breaks." But the key to success in school and in life, many education experts say, is academic learning. Shaving a few minutes from recess, or even eliminating it altogether, they argue, won't hurt children. Play has educational value, they admit, but play can occur outside of school; school should be devoted to academics. Have You Seen These Articles From the Ed World Archive? Recess Before Lunch Can Mean Happier, Healthier Kids Recess follows lunch almost as predictably as four follows three, because it always has been that way. Principals who have put recess first, though, have noticed children eat more and behave better after lunch. Included: Ideas for making the change to recess before lunch. Playground Pass Creates Recess Success! If you've done recess duty, you know the playground is not all fun and games! Wouldn't you love a simple, straightforward teaching tool that steers students away from trouble and into recess success? The Playground Pass does just that! Recess: Necessity or Nicety? The pressure for schools to improve student test scores is so intense that some are abandoning the childhood treasure of "recess" in lieu of more on-task time. Education World asked educators about recess practices at their schools and the importance of free time for kids to be kids. Included: Tips for a safe and productive recess period. No Break Today! Faced with a need to find more time to meet increasing educational standards, 40 percent of schools in the United States have either cut recess or are considering doing so. But does cutting recess really gain more learning time? Read what the experts -- and columnist Linda Starr -- have to say about the growing trend toward "all work and no play." boom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
extra recess should be banned

Throughout round two, it seems as if you are supporting the notion of extra recess (or that it should just stay the same). What is meant by "extra recess"? While I was in grade school, we had a recess (15 minutes) and a Physical Education class (30 minutes). For the majority of our Physical Education class, they would organize a game (soccer, basketball, etc.) and then have teachers overview it. During recess, we were allowed to play outside (as long as the temperature permitted) or inside (only if we had to). It seems to me that your argument is not based around not having extra recess, but rather, having responsible adults to overlook the recess period. You even state that a recess before lunch benefits the children throughout the afternoon. Why would we want to take that energizing force away from them? The Japanese system of education is very different from our own. It is very strict with a heavy influence on the maths and sciences. Due to their system being strict, they allow the children more breaks as it is more tasking on the mind. Do you want extra recess banned in the United States or the whole world?Again, your argument seems to be that the teachers just need to be more responsible in order to watch the children. I do agree that they should go through some sort of vetting (or "training") process in order to be able to watch children in an appropriate manner. As you stated, recess helps energize a kid and helps them to have a good attitude throughout the school day. Children need that release at least twice a day. At the end of it, recess will only take up 30 minutes of an 8 hour school day.