BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is Inanimate (by default)

So thanks. Ok, the New York Times and The Gray Lady: It doesn't really matter what my beliefs are. I could just as easily play 'devil's advocate' in any debate I chose where I defended a side in reality I do not believe. Debates are judged not on the personal or professional or whatever merits of the debater, or even whether the debater is actually correct, but the quality of the argument. Atheists regularly vote for Theist positions and visa versa on DDO because a poor argument can be made for the truth, and a good argument can be made for a lie. Debate is as much about honing one's mind as it is finding the truth. So I say the first point Pro makes in R2, basically calling me crazy, is irrelevant. Pro did not provide a definition of the terms he used, as is common in debate. So I provided my own, very plain, uncontroversial, broad definition of consciousness from a customary source, which seemed fair to me, and is common practice on DDO. Note Pro does not take issue with my chosen definition. Pro also makes an absolute statement in the opening: "God is by default 'Inanimate' and without consciousness of any sort. " Absolute statements are invalid if any exception is found. I provided a few strong exceptions. Pro's absolute is invalid. Pro responds with incredulity, taking The Gray Lady's name in vain, and abruptly moves on to his next point without further argument:Pro asserts he is not arguing that God is hypothetically or actually real. ("You state, regarding my first submission, that I cannot retract my reference to Yahweh as being a real God. ")But he did. "The 'collective consciousness' of life IS, by default, 'God's Spirit', working to create. It IS this Spirit that IS perceptible to all life forms. Jesus IS a Spirit creation as is Nelson Mandela and Dan Aykroyd (God Bless Him). God IS by default 'Inanimate' and without consciousness of any sort. God IS the House in which we live and to which we have become emotionally attached. "I understood from the beginning Pro is an athiest, so it follows that if he is using "IS," the present form of "be" or "to be," he is referring to God as actually existing for the sake of argument. I think in R1 I put it pretty well why Pro can't kritic his own debate. Also, I referred to God as "Uber" conscious because I provided several examples over the required one example of God being conscious to win.
My little pony IS a immature show

Well for my closing thoughts I just want to say that it is a shame that this was a bust. A one sided debate if you can even call it that. Still I think I was able to prove the point that MLP:FiM isn't a mature show with the plethora of evidence I provided and what not. This could have been a bit more fun if my opponent didn't do anything but prove my point more so (and actually do something while he was at it). I will probably do one more debate which will give me my voting rights here on the site. Until then I got nothing much else to say. I will say this. MLP:FiM could have been a great show and a excellent reboot, but people just fail to realize certain facts. They also like to believe what isn't there. I guess you could count MLP as being a mature show in the sense of generations it has been on or when comparing it to a far worse show or something. It might be a bit more mature than Phineas and Ferb in that it doesn't follow the same song and dance routine that that show does. I mean lets face it the basic Phineas and Ferb show is: They want to do something that has never been done before. They get their friends to help with whatever that thing is. The sister tries to "bust" them by telling the mother. A sub plot/story with their spy pet and the not so evil evil guy. They accomplish whatever it is. Sister fails (yet again) at "busting" them. Spy pet defeats not so evil evil guy and returns home. Rinse and Repeat. MLP at least has SOME originality when it comes to stories and it CAN be mature or at least have some resemblance of maturity in or during certain episodes. It has also proven it CAN some what change things up a bit even if it is only temporary. I was once told that My little pony: Friendship is magic has potential. I agree fully 100% with that statement. The problem here is that potential means nothing if you go no where with it. Every person on this planet has the potential to do something great or become someone great. If people don't try or decide just to stay where they are at though, then all the potential goes to waste and means nothing in the end. When Michael Jordan was a young boy he had the potential to become the superstar basketball player he is/was. If he as a child never practiced or played basketball do you think he would have been able to walk on a basketball court and do what he was able to do for all those years? Do you think he would would be able to win a single game? Maybe by luck, but I doubt it. It is the same here. MLP has plenty of potential to become a great a mature show that all can enjoy for the most part, but if Hasbro keeps the show and the show's creators where they are at now then all of the potential just goes to waste. Just like it has been. Potential doesn't mean diddly squat if nothing is done with it. I guess that is probably how things are always going to be. If potential isn't recognized or isn't used to its max it just goes to waste. This show is just a perfect example of that. I guess on the bright side there are shows that are mature and do use their potential.
My little pony IS a immature show

While doing some searching I noticed someone else started a debate like this but it never took off for whatever reason. My last debate was more about the fandom behind the show and only scratched the surface of the show itself. I figured this will be more about the show and less about the fandom behind it. The new series of MLP:FiM aka G4 My little pony was created by the wife of veteran cartoon series creator Craig McCracken, Lauren Faust. As I mentioned in my last debate Lauren was hired to revamp the series. She was given a guideline which to some degree she followed. She wanted the show to be more though. She tried to go past her boundaries and Hasbro put a stop to her. While she was able to do a lot with the show she was in charge of; she was still limited due to the guidelines. These limits prevented her from creating her "perfect vision" of the show and she eventually left because of this. Now why is this show not "mature"? Well to answer this question I will be going over some various things that makes something mature. I will also make various comparisons, but instead of trying to laying all my cards out at once I will just introduce one thing at a time. This way I can prove that show is immature as well as address any counter-points my opponent makes I will start off with my first point on why the show is immature. As stated in my previously, Lauren Faust had a great idea for thow. She did want to make the show mature. At least more mature than what it has been and what it is now. This didn't happen because of Hasbro. Which is my first point. When someone creates a medium they usually create it specifically for a target. In the case of MLP Hasbro's target was little girls. They never meant for it to be anything more or less than a show for little girls. The past 25 plus some odd years prove this if you look back from when the very first incarnation of this show was created in the 1980's. From that point on they have continued on the same path and have yet to stray from it or stray very far from it. The same thing can be said with every thing. When I create a show, book, or whatever my first thought is "who it will be for". This way I know what I want to put in my whatever and/or what I can and can't put in my whatever. This is why people don't watch adult channels like Playboy or Spice and see something akin to Blue Clues or House of Mouse. The same can be said with the various family networks. I won't turn on Disney and ever see a show called "Hot MILFS banging step daughters". The content creators decide the maturity level of the content and not the content viewers. Even if the content viewers aren't who or what the content was created for.
Atheism is not a religion

Not all atheists believe in the big bang. However, the difference between the big bang or any other position an atheist may take, such as the universe always being here or the universe as the uncaused cause is that these positions are either backed by scientific evidence[1] or are default positions. It does not take faith to believe in the big bang, as it explains a lot of what we see happening in the universe today and has some scientific evidence to back it up (granted the big bang theory has flaws), unlike a god or gods. It requires no faith to believe that the universe is an uncaused cause because the universe is here. There is certainly evidence for the universe; we're living in it! However, saying that god created the universe is not supported by any evidence and requires faith to believe. 1. http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...
Atheism is not a religion

Hello,Recently I've come across the assertion that atheism is a religion quite a bit, so I decided to have a debate to see what this assertion was all about.RulesRounds 1-4 are all debate, no acceptance round and you can make arguments in any round.If you disagree with the following definitions, please state as such in your opening argument.Definitions:Atheism: 1. A disbelief in the existence of deity[1]Religion: 1. The belief in a god or in a group of gods[2]2. An organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods[2]Sources1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
As the human race are we matriarchal or patriarchal

Historically we have been patriarchal in most cultures, as evidenced by the adoption of the father's last name, inheritance, etc. This is not necessarily the right thing. Your argument frankly is poorly stated. We have a special relationship with our dad's as well, as well members of our family and community. Either way, a special relationship doesn't prove anything. I could have a relationship with my dog.
Soda Pop

Actually, Soda pop does have some health benefits if you didn't know. Scientists and doctors have found that one of the best treatments for gastric phytobezoar, A condition where a person has difficulty with food moving through their digestive tract and suffers stomach blockages, Is a glass of Coca-Cola. The high acidity in the fizzy drink acts like gastric acid and can ease severe abdominal pain, Break down the blockages and get things moving again.
The Benefits of the Ethical Treatment of Livestock Outweigh the Disadvantages

I have selected Envisage as my opponent! =) Definitions: Ethical treatment of livestock: This includes, but is not limited to stunning & rendering animals unconscious before they are slaughtered, minimizing livestock's stress before slaughter, handling animals well, and providing them with healthy living conditions. For further details, see Humane Handling of Livestock standards as defined by the USDA. [1] In this debate, I will also apply ethical standards to all avian creatures, like chickens and turkeys. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments/rebuttals Round 3: Arguments/Rebuttals Round 4: Arguments/Rebuttals Round 5: Rebuttals/Conclusion only 72 hours per round, 10k character limit [1] http://www.fsis.usda.gov...
The Benefits of the Ethical Treatment of Livestock Outweigh the Disadvantages

I urge the voters to to disregard con's FF in round 4. Please vote solely on whose points outweigh whose. On that note, I hope all is well with Envisage. Summary/Conclusion: The unethical treatment of livestock... -Encourages and causes food contamination -Weakens the treatments available for not just food borne illnesses, potentially all illnesses treated by antibiotics -Pushes rising prices to consumers and unfair pay to farmers because of industries' monopolist market power -Raises the quality of meat people consume -May slightly reduce meat produced each year, with a good potential for indirectly decreasing the amount of animal products consumed by people. This may likely lower high rates of cancer and heart disease, the first two leading causes of death in America. -Costs the country (US) roughly $414 billion dollars each year in health, environmental, and animal welfare expenses. -Has a huge negative impact on the environment; meat-eaters produce about double the dietary greenhouse gas emissions than vegans do. With the ethical treatment of animals, producing a significant of animal products each year is still possible. Lessening factory-farming, and therefore lessening monopolistic control, would be good news for farmers who are left with very little options in buyers. It would even be good news for the job market because it would be more viable as a competitive industry. The ethical treatment of livestock does not threaten the food supply, nor do developed countries like America necessitate the need for such a significant amount of animal products. As I've pointed out, Americans throw away up to 40% of food each year, and a study suggests that the world's food supply could be doubled if people ate less meat. Which, if I say so myself, more than makes up for difference in meat produced ethically vs. unethically. Also, farms that uphold the ethical treatment of livestock do exist and can be very successful - like in the example I gave in round three. I will acknowledge, however, that it could be catastrophic if the US enforced the ethical treatment of livestock at once. This sort of system would require gradual, yet strict change. Once people have moved over to it though, it will more beneficial than the current system, in which factory-farming controls costs and indirectly wreaks havoc on people's lives. And to boot, the ethical treatment of livestock will also please the many people who consider it the moral road to take.
The unfairness of debtors prison

I accept the challenge. Round 5 will be conclusions, no new info can be brought up, only that which has been brought up in the debate thus far. Definitions will not be argued in the debate, all definitions will be commonly accepted meanings. In order to win this debate I have to prove that debtors prison is unfair, despite Cons reasons that it is fair. (Debtors prison is the incarceration of people based on unpaid debt)
The unfairness of debtors prison

Max - 10,000 words 72 hours to post response 6 months to vote, Judges have plenty of time Rules & Definitions The rules and definitions will be open to debate themselves. For the sake of organization, they should be flowed under the subheading of Theory or Framework. Pro prefers if judge and any voters flow and determine winner via tabula rasa. Desired Format Rd - 1: Acceptance Rd - 2: Opening Constructives Rd - 3-5: Constructives & Rebuttals
Age discrminination in the workplace should be illegal.

1. My opponent makes a good case in the first half of his rebuttal for MY side of the argument. He points out that with time, people gain knowledge and wisdom. So with jobs requiring a great deal of experience and knowledge, surely companies would be justified in preferring older, more experienced candidates over fresh faced teens? However, then Pro makes the universal claim that abilities and knowledge increase with age, and this is simply false. Is Pro seriously claiming that people's skill and abilities increase up until they die? A simple inquiry into the very elderly of the population will disprove this. Mental problems are also far more common in the elderly, so it isn't true that they will always become more knowledgeable as they age. He makes no real rebuttal to my point about the job of a surgeon. I gave explicit evidence for the claim that age has a clear impact on a vital ability in the profession, and how does he respond? He says that they both learned how to concentrate under pressure in medical school, so they must both be equally competent! But this will not be the case, for the reasons I already gave and Pro has not addressed, so clearly Pro has not responded to the actual argument. 2. Pro thinks my second rebuttal supports his side of the argument. However, the only reason he thinks this is because he misunderstands it (perhaps I stated it unclearly). I will try and make my point clearer. If age discrimination is made illegal, then it would give people who had been fired for being, as my opponent claims, 'objectively' unsuitable, the opportunity to bring to court the FALSE claim that they had been fired because of their age. Making age discrimination illegal would increase these court cases, so it is not at all clear that the overall number of court cases would decrease. To sum up- Pro has not defended point one well, making over-generalisations to try and support his point (which doesn't affirm the resolution anyway-in fact it supports the claim that we should discriminate based on age) and he has responded confusedly to point two, missing the overall argument.
Age discrminination in the workplace should be illegal.

I will refute what the negative stated and then i will rebuild my arguments of why it needs to be illegal. Negative states and argues, referring to my first contention, by questioning what I stated meaning that adults can do just as much as teenagers can do and vice versa. I stated that it is just like discriminating because of race or religion. Negative states that age has a direct consequence on the ability to concentrate, which deteriorates with time. I disgree. Why do you think cultures around the country and around the world respect their elders? Not to make them feel better before they die, but because the elders have wisdom. Abilities and knowledge increase with age, not decrease! The negative refers to the job of a surgeon, lives hang on the ability to concentrate under pressure. That's what they go to medical school for ... to learn how to learn under pressure. Who cares if it's a 24 year old or a 40 year old doctor? As long as they know their skills, then they are all set. The negative also states that people would be bringing lawsuits against their companies on the claim that they had been fired because their age. He also stated that this would be further exacerbated because some of them WOULD have been fired for their age. This, believe it or not, supports my argument. It shall be illegal because then age discrminination would not happen. It would reduce the amount of people in courts suing because the bosses and the companies would know it is illegal. To restate my points... My first contention is that the elderly may be just as capable as the young. Since age is not necessarily an indication of inferior ability or potential, treating a person less favourably purely on the basis of their age is just as unreasonable and unfair as doing so on the basis of his race or religion. My second (and final) contention is that businesses are liable to be held accountable in a lawsuit. As a result of someone getting "let go" or demoted from their employer, they are going to try and get the money that they deserve.
Age discrminination in the workplace should be illegal.

I shall present my counterpoints to Pro's arguments. -- Pro's Arguments -- 1. Pro contends that since the elderly may be just as capable as the young (90 year olds, 7 year olds? Really? ), discriminating against them is just as unfair as discriminating on the basis of race or religion. Furthermore, he says that if age is a problem, employers can discriminate based on the poor performance entailed by it, and not the age itself. 1a. However, there are a number of problems with this. First and foremost, while in principle treatment of employees should be based on merit, it is very hard to test accurately for specific qualities employers are looking for- qualities which are often heavily influenced by age. For instance, take the job of a surgeon. In such a profession, lives hang on the ability to concentrate under pressure. Age has a direct consequence on the ability to concentrate, which deteriorates with time [1]. Since age is such a good indicator of a vital ability, it would be folly to ignore it when hiring. Age is also a good indicator of other abilities, such as energy and memory, which are vital to other professions- it simply cannot be ignored when reviewing employees for the suitability of different professions. The same, of course, is also true of professions where older candidates would be better suited- consulting, executive search etc. Finally, let me note the absurd comparison my opponent is making here. Is he really claiming that age has no more relevance to job capability than race or religion? While the race or religion of a person give no important indicators either way, age has a clear impact on candidate's suitability, so the comparison just doesn't hold up. 2. Next, my opponent points out that former employees bring lawsuits against their employers due to age discrimination. Pro brings up a local case, in which a policeman was denied promotion because of his age. 2a. I am glad my Pro points out that doing so wastes money in his concluding remarks, because I was unsure as to what Pro intended this argument to prove with this argument. But if age discrimination were illegal, which my opponent is arguing for, there would be a spout of posers who had been fired/rejected because of their unsuitability, bringing lawsuits against their companies on the claim that they had been fired because their age. This would be further exacerbated because some of them WOULD have been fired for their age- justifiably, as per my previous argument. In conclusion, my opponent has provided no compelling reasons to make age discrimination illegal. It would prevent companies making justifiable decisions based on the age of their candidates, and it would also open the door for people who had been fired/rejected for good reasons to falsely claim they had been fired due to age concerns. [1] . http://seniorliving.about.com... [2] . http://findarticles.com...