BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Trade Benefits the United States

IntroductionWelcome. As debate over the Trans-Pacific Partnership heats up, questions about the benefits and drawbacks of free trade are being raised by people from all sides of the political spectrum.This debate will not be a defense of the TPP, as I do not know the full details of the bill. Instead, this debate will focus purely on the concept of free trade, and how it effects the US economy. I am an avid support of free trade, and I think it is extremely beneficial to both our country and the countries we trade with. Prerequisites To be eligibile to debate this, you must have a minimum of 3 debates voted on and an elo of 2000. Also, you must make sure that there are no things in your schedule that would potentially prevent you from completing every round. These are very lenient requirements intended to reduce the chance of forfeited rounds,Debate Structure The debate will have 4 rounds, a 72 hour window to respond per round, and a 10,000 character limit.The burden of proof is shared. Con is requried to show that free trade is a net harm to the country, and I am required to show that free trade is a net benefit to the country. Whoever best meets their burden of proof should be voted the winner of this debate. The rounds will have the following structure:1st Round:-Pro: Introduction-Con: Acceptance2nd Round:-Pro: First Arguments-Con: First Arguments/Rebuttals 3rd Round:-Pro: Arguments/Rebuttals-Con: Arguments/Rebuttals4th Round:-Pro: Arguments/Rebuttals/Conclusion-Con: Arguments/Rebuttals/Conclusion If you're interested in doing this debate, please say so in the comments and I will let the most qualified person accept within a few days.
HYE ETHheER DLEIENA

Hey there, Delilah What's it like in New York city? I'm a thousand miles away But, girl, tonight you look so pretty Yes, you do Times Square can't shine as bright as you I swear, it's true Hey there, Delilah Don't you worry about the distance I'm right there if you get lonely Give this song another listen Close your eyes Listen to my voice, it's my disguise I'm by your side Oh, it's what you do to me Oh, it's what you do to me Oh, it's what you do to me Oh, it's what you do to me What you do to me Hey there, Delilah I know times are gettin' hard But just believe me, girl Someday I'll pay the bills with this guitar We'll have it good We'll have the life we knew we would My word is good Hey there, Delilah I've got so much left to say If every simple song I wrote to you Would take your breath away I'd write it all Even more in love with me you'd fall We'd have it all Oh, it's what you do to me Oh, it's what you do to me Oh, it's what you do to me Oh, it's what you do to me A thousand miles seems pretty far But they've got planes and trains and cars I'd walk to you if I had no other way Our friends would all make fun of us And we'd just laugh along because we'd know That none of them have felt this way Delilah, I can promise you That by the time that we get through The world will never ever be the same And you're to blame Hey there, Delilah You be good, and don't you miss me Two more years and you'll be done with school And I'll be makin' history like I do You know it's all because of you We can do whatever we want to Hey there, Delilah, here's to you This one's for you Oh, it's what you do to me Oh, it's what you do to me Oh, it's what you do to me Oh, it's what you do to me What you do to me, oh oh, woah, woah Oh woah, oh Oh
Should violent video games be banned

Well in most cases where the kid that did the crime and violent videos games are addressed the kid is normally is mentally unstable plus by banning them it is getting rid of the one way a kid can safely vent out anger. Now should battlefield and call of duty be banned? yes but I think that there a great violent videos games that allow a kid to take there anger out of I mean going back to my the kid doing the crime is Normally unstable I mean I have played many a gta games but it has never made me want to murder someone or steal cars or do anything I do in it. Like the game hatred that is coming out it is just you blowing stuff up and murdering people I mean I think a kid (Not like 9 or 8 or something like that that is to young) could benefit from by having a great venting thing plus the violence in games like hatred a kid knows when they get to like 3erd grade so it is not like they won't know it when there young. And when they turn into adults they will learn about violence anyways So why not in a safe environment of his own home and not on the street where he is getting mugged.
It is probable that God exists

Observation 1: Pro makes it clear that he believes God does not have a creator. He makes this claim while also claming something had to create the universe, If it is possible for something to exist without needing a creator (God), Then why does the universe need a creator? Pro has committed a fallacy known as 'special pleading' wherein a double standard is employed by the person making the assertion. His logic used, Does not apply to God. O2: Considering we know the universe is expanding, It's more likely to assume the universe undergoes a constant expansion and contraction cycle, It could therefore be the cause of the big bang. It would be more logical to say this cycle has been going on for an infinite amount of time, Rather than, To suggest a God has existed for an infinite amount of time. Arguing for an uncaused cause does not demonstrate the existence of a God, It only introduces more questions, The question here is simple, Why does an uncaused cause have to be a God? O3: If there was no time and only God before the creation of the universe, Then what was God doing before creating the universe? Omnipotence ParadoxMy opponent who considers himself a rational man, Has responded to the rock paradox with this, "God can actualize logically impossible situations"This is a neat way of saying God is magic. This is where our debate is going. Pro cannot rationally answer a simple question and has to resort to the magic argument. [1] Omnipotence is logically impossible, As we both agree. [2] To believe a God to exists, One must believe logic is not always necessary. [3] To not use logic, Is to be illogical. [4] Pro is illogical and believes in magic. God can create an unliftable rock and still lift it, Because he's magic? Then he's failed at creating an unliftable rock. Pro has shown he does not understand the paradox presented and shown his reasoning is illogical. My opponent’s science argument I didn’t respond to this section because there was nothing of substance to respond to. I agree that the big bang occurred. I could not find an argument detrimental to my stance in this section. Deductive reasoning If deductive reasoning is all the Kalam argument offers, Then I am thoroughly disappointed. God is an extraordinary claim to which we require extra ordinary evidence, Deductive reasoning is not extra ordinary evidence, Therefore the resolution was never met. In summary Even if an uncaused cause is needed for the creation of the universe, Pro has not demonstrated that such a cause is omnipresent, Omnipotent and a God. I am disappointed that Pro had to resort to the magic argument and in doing so, Ignored logical and rational thinking. Pro has not made a single argument from science and has thus far failed to meet his burden of proof. The existence of a God remains improbable.
It is probable that God exists

Thank you for presenting your case. God and Beginning Con said that if a God never had a beginning, Then a God could never arrive in the present. I used this logic with the universe saying that If the universe never had a beginning, Then the present moment could never arrive. Con tries to use the same logic on God. Con assumes that since I said the universe must have a beginning because it has arrived in the present moment, God therefore must have a beginning too in order to arrive in the present. This fails to understand that there has to be an uncaused cause because of the absurdity of an infinite regress. Something has to be uncaused which itself caused everything else into existence/being. To equate God with the universe is false. Indeed, The universe must have a cause. But there also has to exist an uncaused being (God) which caused everything else into existence. I made it clear in my round 2 that an uncaused cause must exist. Omnipotence Paradox Con said, If one has the power to do anything, Can one create a rock so heavy that they can never lift it? This paradox tries to show that an omnipotent God cannot exist because it is logically impossible. However, This paradox necessitates an omnipotent being, An omnipotent being can by definition do logically impossible things. Thus, The Paradox has to agree that this omnipotent being (God) can do impossible Things. Omnipotence entails that God can actualize logically impossible situations like creating a stone he cannot lift. Therefore, This Paradox basically debunks itself. Sources Con doesn't seem to understand that the Kalam argument is a deductive argument, It is necessarily true. Con seem to assume that something cannot be true if it is not demonstrated and tested. This is merely an assumption without any given justification. There is no reason why the voters should not consider my sources while voting. -------------- Con has barely touched the Kalam argument. Con has not addressed my scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe. Premise 2 of the Kalam argument stands strong. Premise 1 stands even stronger as there are no objections given to it. Con's case, as I have shown, Is fallacious. The resolution remains affirmed.
It is probable that God exists

My case against God [Case 1] A claim is being made here by Pro. Now the scientific method takes over. The scientific method is simple, If someone is to make a claim, They must test that claim and present evidence to support it. My opponent will be providing evidence in the form of an argument. That evidence is intended to prove that a Gods existence is probable. My stance is to explain why that evidence is insufficient and thus, Why the God hypothesis is not probable. [Case 2] I am not claiming something can come from nothing, The only person who could suggest something can come from nothing, Is my opponent. Where else would a God come from? The only retort possible, Would be one suggesting God has always been, But that brings me to my next argument. My opponent’s philosophical argument, Refutes any attempt to suggest a God could have always existed. He very clearly states, “If the universe never had a beginning, Then the present moment could never arrive. ” If we use that same logic and apply it to a God, We know that if a God never had a beginning, Then a God could never arrive in the present. [Case 3] The conclusion of the argument put forth by my opponent, Does not indicate the need for a God, It only indicates uncertainty. What I will say however is, The claim for a God is unreasonable, Especially if one is defining that God as omnipotent. Aside from the fact that my opponent has talked about the absurdity of ad infinitum [A] and forgot that omnipotence means to have infinite power, We need to talk about the paradox of being omnipotent. If one has the power to do anything, Can one create a rock so heavy that they can never lift it? If they can create a rock so heavy that they can never lift, Then they’ve demonstrated they cannot lift this rock, Showing us a restriction in their power and thus making them no longer omnipotent. Alternately, They can lift the rock and have failed to create an unliftable rock. Thus, Omnipotence has been proven to be illogical and impossible. Sources The sources presented, While interesting, Cannot be traced back to a scientific study, Therefore, They do not provide us with a demonstrated and tested proof of a Gods existence. Do not consider them while voting. For this very reason, I will not waste your time by providing sources. I look forward to my opponents response and hope our debate remains productive. [A] “Because if the cause of the universe had a cause and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, Then there wouldn’t be a universe to talk about in the first place. Thus, We have to posit an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of an infinite regress”
It is probable that God exists

Thanks for the debate Pro, In truth, I see very little in your argument that has not been already covered. I have in every instance refuted Pros claims and in every instance, I have been met with unreasonable and ill applied logic, Including but not limited to- [1] “God can actualize logically impossible situations” -Why bring magic into this? [2] “An uncaused causer is not what makes it God alone” -Your premise is the universe is uncaused and your conclusion is 'therefore God' You have now just told us, 'therefore not necessarily God' [3] “This assumes that God is an extraordinary claim in the first Place. It is not. ” -An almighty universe creating, Impossible-doing being is very extraordinary. I’ve never seen one. [4] “This cause must be timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, Changeless” -Pro claims to know what exists outside of the universe. Do I claim to know? I wouldn’t be so stupid as to make such a claim with 0 evidence. [5] “Logic is not always necessary. Do you need to use Logic to know that you love somebody? ” -Awful analogy, We can use logic to work out why we love somebody because we can feel love, Unlike love, You don’t feel God. [6] “Nothing could exist without the need for a creator” -Except for God right? Thus, Such an argument is self-debunking. Words have been put into my mouth [1] “Con would argue that a timeless, Spaceless and immaterial cycle has been going on forever. ” -I never came to that conclusion. I don’t claim to know which of many hypothesis and theories are true, That’s reserved for people who can’t stand not knowing. [2] “He also agrees that something cannot come out of nothing” -I never agreed to that, We don’t have an example of nothing so I wouldn’t know what that would be. I of course remain skeptical. As you can see, I have remained patient in the face of overwhelming and ruthlessly fallacious logic, But my patience draws thin. The omnipotence paradox is where any hint of intelligent discourse breaks down. This is not a case of Pro using poor logic, This is a case of Pro using NO logic. Pro constantly uses the sentence “God can actualize logically impossible situations” this means exactly, God is magic. Pros defends his argument by claiming, God is magic and doesn’t abide by logic. A man who claims to be a rational man has admitted to believing in magic and admitted that logic is not always necessary. How does one communicate an argument without logic? How can Pro expect to win over voters when he refuses to use logic? To believe my opponents absurd claim of a God, One must violate what they know about creality and believe magic is real, Logic is not necessary and unliftable rocks can be lifted. This is a terrible case for a God. I conclude there is insufficient evidence for the claims that, -God exists. -God is omniscience. -God is Omnipotence. -God is a maximally great being. Therefore Pro has failed to meet their burden of proof.
Adding fluoride to community's water

Yes, I would support adding fluoride to our community's water. Fluoride in water is the most efficient way to prevent childhood diseases. It helped prevent tooth decay by 25% in both children and adults. Drinking fluoridated water has not been known to cause any form of cancer or any other health conditions. For 70 years, Scientific evidence indicates that fluoride water is safe. Health organizations notice the health benefits of water fluoridation. An average lifetime cost per person to fluoridate a water supply is less than one dental filling. It saves money for both families and health care system. The estimate for the community water fluoridation ranged from 4$ in small communities, And 27$ in large communities. Overall I think its a good decision to add fluoride, Because it is one of the greatest advances in our nation's public health. 1. Adding fluoride to public water supplies has been credited with being responsible for the decline in tooth decay in the U. S. Every since mid-1980s. Its affordable and convenient, Also its an important advancement on health and helps to protect against cavities.
Adding fluoride to community's water

NAH FAM :P Adding fluoride to water has NOT been a very wise move considering that fluoride has been added to many other sources including toothpaste, Mouthwashes and various other chemical products. Keep in mind that ingesting anything in excess can be toxic, And this is not untrue of fluoride. Excessive exposure to fluoride has been linked to many health problems: dental & skeletal fluorosis, Thyroid problems, Neurological conditions and reproductive issues, Just to name a few. [1] So you are incorrect in saying that "Drinking fluoridated water has not been known to cause any form of cancer or any other health conditions. " The fact that fluoride doses are carefully calculated and controlled should show you that it is not an inherently safe substance. It is technically a water contaminant, And is thus regulated by the EPA [5]. I mean if parents of children under the age of 8 are warned to not allow their kids to use fluoridated mouthwash, And to ensure that their children do not swallow toothpaste [2] for the sole reason that ingesting fluoride in large quantities is poisonous, Then surely there's something fishy don't you think? The same source also highlights that it would be best if you don't feed your infant child with formula that's going to be mixed with fluoridated water, But then goes on to say that regardless, "it is safe to use water with fluoride, As [fluoride toxicity] does not affect the health of your child". A few warning bells should be going off in your head right about now! BTW tooth decay has decreased in countries that do not fluoridate their water too - therefore this is not unique to community water fluoridation. Please compare the following graphs: 1. The prevalence of tooth decay in countries that fluoridate their water [3]; and 2. The prevalence of tooth decay in countries that do NOT fluoridate their water [4]. What you will find is that the occurrence of tooth decay has consistently decreased on average over the past few decades regardless of fluoridation practices. I will definitely agree that some evidence suggests that there is a correlation between fluoride and lower levels of tooth decay, But is it necessary to add it to our water where we'll be absorbing it into our bodies? I'm not a dentist or a health professional, But in my opinion the best way to ensure that people don't get cavities is to educate them on proper hygiene practices. Plaque formation and bacterial accumulation are the major contributors to cavities and tooth decay, Not a lack of fluoride lol! SOURCES: 1. Https://www. Medicalnewstoday. Com/articles/154164. Php 2. Https://www. Mouthhealthy. Org/en/az-topics/f/fluorosis 3. Https://public. Tableau. Com/views/TESTDMFT/Toothdecayincountrieswithfluoridatedwater? :embed=y&:loadOrderID=0&:display_count=yes 4. Https://public. Tableau. Com/views/TESTDMFT/Countrieswithoutfluoridatedwater? :embed=y&:loadOrderID=1&:display_count=yes&:showTabs=y 5. Https://www. Nap. Edu/read/11571/chapter/2
Pro must prove God does not exist, Con must prove God exists.

First off, the Pro knows what I meant to debate. I stated in the main title that it's about whether God exists or doesn't exist. The only reason I said "fake" and "real" was so I didn't keep saying exist. I wanted to switch it up a little. I admit that the words fake and real my not be the best choices for debate. But you know full well what I mean, and I stated it in the main title. I think you are nitpicking just to be an @ss hole. Pro: "I think you should automatically lose the debate if you have failed to write what you actually meant as the debate topic. That's just really sloppy." I have not failed to do so, I wrote it in the title, that is what I actually meant. Although he brings up a valid point about "fake" and "real", it should not make me lose just like that. I think Pro is just afraid he will lose this and wants a forfeit win. If anything, you should lose for not following my debate format that I put in Round 1. You were only supposed to accept, not put forth your argument (which is by the way weak). Thanks to you, my precious format has been dismantled and this will be unorganized. That's just really sloppy. To clarify, yes, I mean God who is a "anthropomorphised God with a physical form, and an individualised mind, and which exerts a direct influence on this universe." If it is incredibly simple to disprove his existence, then you should've been able to defeat me in Round 1. Instead, you pull out a lazy argument in Occam's razor. I specifically asked that you prove God is real. This problem-solving theory, which states that the one with the fewest assumptions wins, does not prove anything. If anything, it is just an assumption itself. My evidence falls in Saint Thomas Aquinas's five proofs of God's existence, the most notable of these is prima causa. here is a link to them: [1]. Unlike your "proof", this is actually proof. I have more ways of proving God's existence through documented miracles in which science has not explained and defy physics/laws of the universe, but those are for another day. Please provide proof that God does not exist, not an assumption that monotheism is the "unfavourable position", and also counter Aquinas's five proofs, if you can. 1.http://web.mnstate.edu...
Pro must prove God does not exist, Con must prove God exists.

This is a peculiar debate topic. The OP states, "You must prove God is fake, I must prove God is real." It is peculiar for several reasons. Primarily because something that is fake is something that is "pretend" or "counterfeit". Obviously, if a thing is able to be these things, then that thing must clearly exist. The question, therefore, reads as if asking, "You must prove that our God is a fake god, I must prove that our God is the real God. I do not believe that this is what the OP meant to say. I believe he intended to say, "You must prove God does not exist, I must prove God exists." I am nitpicking this for sure, and I think you should automatically lose the debate if you have failed to write what you actually meant as the debate topic. That's just really sloppy. Assuming that he wants me to disprove the existence of God, I'll then have to decide how the word God is defined. I personally ascribe to word God to mean the "ultimate reality" behind physical and psychological science. Something like the quantum vacuum. I don't think this is the God you want me to disprove. I assume that you want me to disprove an anthropomorphised God with a physical form, and an individualised mind, and which exerts a direct influence on this universe. Winning that argument is incredibly simple. Occam's razor leads us to believe that monotheism is an unfavourable position. We have no way to know if Occam's razor is a correct means of judgement, but it is our best. There you go.
Pro must prove God does not exist, Con must prove God exists.

Obviously, burden of proof is on both Pro and Con as mentioned in the topic description. You must prove God is fake, I must prove God is real. The format: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals to Round 2 Round 4: Rebuttals to Round 3 Rebuttals Notice: You cannot add any new arguments in Round 3. Rebuttals are only permitted in the final round, so make sure you put as many points as you can in Round 2. The same shall go for round 4, only refute round 3, NOT round 2. Also, since the Pro will follow Con, he/she must make sure not start until Round 2. This will mess up the whole format, which I see is very fair to both sides, if anything more fair to you because you have the last word. Good luck, may the best debater win.