BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Grounding Yourself In the Present Moment

Thank you for the debate. It is certainly nice to see a philosophical debate for once. I am against "grounding yourself in the present moment". Of course it has some benefits and feels good at the time but I pose the question, is it really benefiting in the long run? The past and the future are just as much part of our lives as the present is. In order to grow as individuals we must learn from the past, take that lesson into the present and then make sure we follow through with that knew knowledge for the future. I always thought that the idea of grounding yourself in the present moment meant neglecting the past and future but they are all part of life. Are we really learning more from staying in the present? I think not. Over the years great minds thought up of great inventions and ideas for the future by 1) knowledge they obtained from the past, 2) conceiving the idea in the present and 3) thinking how it will benefit the future. In other words, using all three tenses of life. This is just an example of the benefits of thinking about the past and the future as well. We grow as humans from knowledge and how can we really obtain knowledge without acknowledging our mistakes? Also by thinking into the future we can not only make sure that such mistakes don't repeat themselves but we can also plan a set of goals to achieve. If we ground ourselves in the present moment then we have nothing to relive and nothing to look forwards to. It's funny that a comment happened to quote my favourite Churchill quote. I will reiterate: "The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see." Source: (http://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org...) To me this quote essentially means "learn from history". Basically, When you look back you see what led to the things that are happening in your life now. And when you see that, you can figure out how what your doing now will do to your future. Churchill adopted this policy and as we all know was one of the leading minds and one of the most iconic figures in recent history. I think this is a more rational approach to life than "grounding yourself in the present". It uses all aspects of life in a positive manner rather than just using one (the present) in a positive manner and forgetting the rest. I look forward to your response.
Grounding Yourself In the Present Moment

It is said not to live in the past nor the future, but the present. Grounding yourself in the present moment requires concentration beyond your current reality, clearing the foggy veil and seeing the truth. Logic seems to be the answer, the universal language that can turn real happiness into contaminated madness. Poisons linking yourself to your future is the fear concept. Demons of your soul, corrupting you sanity for clever lies. You don't need it. The past, a dragging sensation, stopping you form being free in the only moment of life, the present moment. After all... are you here to stay?
NON VOTING IN ELECTIONS MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

YOU: "I think responsible voting makes a difference. If everybody thinks that it does not matter whether he votes or abstains from voting, the fabric of democracy weakens. Because we have freedom not to vote, we abstain. Expressing choice by participating in the voting strengthens democracy." Do you realize how twisted this sounds? You advocate passing laws to make sure people vote because forcing people to vote will make for "responsible voting" because people choosing to vote or not vote "weakens the fabric of democracy" and yet "expressing choice by participating" strengthens democracy. Let's see. Responsible voting matters, so we must force disinterested people into voting. Choosing not to vote weakens the fabric of democracy, so we must remove their choice. Choosing to vote, strengthens democracy so we must force people to vote. To top it all off, your vote typically doesn't matter. A few thousand votes in a small election might make a difference a in a larger election it won't. I live in California. When the presidential election comes around in November, my state will vote for the Democratic Nominee... it could be a Pringles can so long as it has a (D) next to the name. If I don't vote... this same thing happens. -- You honestly want to force disinterested people into voting, removing their choice, and choosing punishments for failure to comply in order to make them go to the polls and pull a random level and change a total of nothing? I'm sorry, but this idea cannot be taken seriously. Further, in the United States at least, it isn't constitutional. You have a right to vote or not to vote. And while there are plenty of things to improve about the system forcing people to vote isn't anywhere on the list.
NON VOTING IN ELECTIONS MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

The long arm of the law is not a process reform. People need to want to vote, and currently there's nothing worth voting for. Converting over to a run off election could certainly help get more people involved and give a voice to those who previously did not have a voice. But, honestly, you don't fix a "lack of interest" with a gun to your temple. Also, voting isn't a sacred duty. There's noting sacred about it. You go into the polling place and put a mark next to whoever the Democrat in the election is and leave. Nothing holy or even slightly difficult about it. Democracy doesn't flourish with a boot to the throat. We would have roughly the same government today as we would have had if we forced people to vote. The choices aren't that great and for the most part voting doesn't change the outcome. For example, did you know that the voting rate is better in Cuba and in Saddam's Iraq than it is in the US, and they only had one party systems... and similar provisions to your rules. We could do many thing to improve the voting and to make the voting count for more, we could elect better people and fix the system, we could do a better job at counting the votes cast, and keeping legal voters on the voter rolls... and we should. Forcing people to the polls does not make magical democracy fairies come around to fix all the problem. Random disinterested people vote when they need to vote, and don't when they don't. Non-voting in elections is near the bottom of problems with government.
NON VOTING IN ELECTIONS MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

I agree that the electoral process needs reforms so that people get a chance to vote without bother we need participative democracies so that better governance emerges and the system truly reflects 'by the people, for the people and of the people' I am worried about the citizens lack of interest in the voting and remaining in the sidelines and fume over the leaders who govern us. What I want to emphasize is that many voters are not doing their sacred once in 4/5 years duty of voting and electing leaders. In democracy we should realize the value of vote is the essence of my argument. Penal provisions for Not Voting in my view are to remind the voters that they have a duty too to fulfill so that their democracy flourishes . Countries are dragged into warlike situations by the leaders many a time and the worst sufferers are the citizens. If the elected candidate gets less than the majority of the eligible votes, it is difficult to justify that he represents the will of the people.
NON VOTING IN ELECTIONS MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

Chill. Your vote is almost never going to matter. For example, I live in California and you know what change is going to happen if I don't vote? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Further, a lot of people don't care to learn about the candidates so they are going to pick random people, just to avoid the long arm of the law. There's a lot to be done to make more people vote. * The time to vote should be increased, for at least a week, in many locations as well as mail in voting. * Not requiring registration to vote prior to voting (citizenship should suffice) However, as it stands, if corrupt folks were just tossed out on their ear and the government functioned like it should, there's be little need to care. You want to force a person to do something they don't want to do upon penalty of law. The only thing you're going to do is force ignorant voters to the polls who don't understand the issue to vote fairly randomly. "This is the result of citizens in democracies not doing their sacred duty which may in turn result in bad governance." -- There's no data to suggest that the individuals likely voters would elect vs. all individuals are any worse. This connection is simply non-existent. The idea that if everybody votes we'll get better people running or winning is strictly speaking... false. There are plenty of problems with government, not enough idiots voting isn't one of them. If anybody made that a law, they'd be voted out of office by the millions facing prison suddenly forced to vote.
NON VOTING IN ELECTIONS MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

Democracy to thrive impose serious responsibility on the citizens to participate in the sacred duty of Voting to elect leaders,who govern them. In many leading democracies the percentage of eligible voter participation is declining with the result that the winning candidates get away with a minority of the total vote percentage. This is the result of citizens in democracies not doing their sacred duty which may in turn result in bad governance. I feel that penal provisions for violation of this fundamental duty by citizens must be made punishable,though freedom is the essence of democracy. Freedom does not mean remaining passive spectator and being lethargic to go to the polling stations and vote. To protect his freedom, the voter has to pay a price by doing his duty of Voting for his choice candidate.
Proof of God Via Dependent Reality

1. A dependent real (something real and caused by another) exists. 2. The dependent real's cause must also be real, and must either be dependent, or independent (not caused by another). 3. The dependent cannot be the sole cause of the dependent. 4. Therefore, the cause must include an independent real (something real and not caused by another). 5. Therefore, an independent real exists. God's scriptures reveal the fact that this Independent Real is none other than God himself. If the Independent Real is not God, then it is something like God. If "something like God" exists, then God also exists. Therefore God exists, Theism is true, and the belief in atheist Dogma is false.
God Does Not Exist

Con has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that God doesn't exist. He has not done this so far.The Big Bang itself is a well-supported theory but we know little about what preceded the Big Bang and if anything preceded it at all. Thus, we have no idea if the Big Bang was caused or not.. It is possible that the Big Bang was caused by God. I don't see a good reason to chalk out that possibility.It can be also argued that God has nothing to do with this universe. This universe was merely the result of chance and natural processes. This doesn't at all refute the existence of God(that which I defined previously) , given that his existence is not contingent on the creation of this universe like that of the Christian God, for example.
God Does Not Exist

Let the debate begin. Back in the 1800s, Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution. This theory states that, over time, changes with the process of natural selection. This makes all living organisms coincide with their environment. This theory has been built on by evolutionists over time, and has become accepted within the science community. This doesn't proof that God doesn't exist, however, this leads me to my next point. Cosmologists discovered that the universe was actually expanding. This led them to rationalize that the universe started out a cosmic explosion, and continues to expand to this day. Evidence of this followed, and became accepted within the science community. With all of this evidence, it's very difficult for something to bring up the possibility of a higher creator.
God Does Not Exist

I take the agnostic position that that there is no proof or good argument for the non-existence of God. My role, hence, is to provide a case where God could exist and refute any argument that claims that He surely doesn't. I'm not here arguing that God does exist. I'm arguing against the notion that "God doesn't exist" by claiming that we can't know that yet with any reasonable certainity. God: Omniscient mind that is capable of interaction with humans and dwells in the supernatural. (I don't define him as moral or immoral).
You Are RationalMadman

Thank you for accepting, RationalMadman. I hope we can finish this debate before you get banned again. That's why I set the response time to 25 minutes.I will now prove that you are, indeed, RationalMadman.Argument from irrational analogyP1: RationalMadman exists.P2: You exist.Thus, you are RationalMadman.Argument from rational ignoranceP1: There is no proof that you are not RationalMadmanThus, you are RationalMadman.Argument from RationalMadman's RazorP1: The simplest possible explanation for things is trueP2: The simplest possible explanation for anything is RationalMadmanThus, you are RationalMadman.Argument from intuitionP1: You are RationalMadman.Thus, you are RationalMadman.Argument from RationalMadmanP1: You told me you are RationalMadman.Thus, you are RationalMadman.I await your rebuttals. Good luck, RationalMadman.
It is, in general conversation, entirely reasonable to say 'America' instead of the USA.

I accept the proposition for me to debate against this motion. I am rather inexperienced in proper debating, but I will do my best in trying to conform to the parameters of the syntax that the general, and your specifically, debate format expect. I will assume a strong chance of opposition against the movement in order to bring out the aspects that make this motion debatable from "my" side.
It is, in general conversation, entirely reasonable to say 'America' instead of the USA.

Resolution: It is completely reasonable for someone to say America instead of the USA.Rules:i. No sneaky wordplay.ii. All FFs are immediate defeats.iii. Round 1 is for acceptance only (suck it GWL-CPA.)General conversation: Conversation with general people in a general enviroment.Online, and in numerous conversations, it's taboo to say "America" because it's actually called the USA. I will argue that it is completely reasonable and completely acceptable to say America instead.
A Christian God exists

My opponent does not seem interested in actual debate. He hopes he can win by pasting website links in lieu of any exposition on his part. I, on the other hand, laid out my argument in full. Sure, it's based on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but it's my words. So, my opponent is wrong when he says he is debating Kalam. His is in fact debating me, for they are my words. Since my opponent doesn't find it necessary to respond to my arguments, I extend them as is. I also extend my rebuttals to his arguments. When my opponent is ready to debate, I'll be happy to oblige.
A Christian God exists

Main point of argument:There is no physical trace of God on Earth. God has never communicated with modern man, either through TV, radio, even the internet. People commonly use the idea that prayer will cure people, however this is an example of a logical fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hocI will use the argument from this site as my next few points: . http://godisimaginary.com... If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God". If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions Sources: . http://godisimaginary.com...
A Christian God exists

I'll let my opponent go first so that we both have three rounds to debate. This does not mean I am attempting to relinquish burden of proof. It seems apparent that we will both offer our arguments in favor of our respective positions. Since this debate focuses on the Christian God, I cite the Westminster Confession of Faith's1 thorough summarization of God's complex characteristics:There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. Sources . http://www.reformed.org...
Marijuana should be legal for recreational use

As I'm sure we've all heard from our health teachers, marijuana is indeed a gateway drug. Marijuana can lead to the trial of other drugs which may be even more harmful that marijuana itself. I see what you mean by saying that there have been zero deaths in history from marijuana, however that statistic is simply regarding the short term effects while being under the influence. Your contentions have completely ignored the long term effects. For example, smoke inhalation (even from cannabis,) Can cause long term effects such as cancer. This debate is about the legalization of marijuana, and not about whether cigarettes and alcohol should be legal or not. Therefore, when I describe the health risks involved in marijuana (which are proved by what I have stated in round 1,) I am speaking about marijuana, not anything else. Another reason that marijuana should not be legalized for recreational use, is because marijuana is terrible for mental health. Marijuana creates a feeling of anxiety to some user which have been linked to depression. This, I suppose would essentially be considered another health risk. With that being said, there are too many long term health risks behind marijuana, so therefore it should remain out of the hands of recreational users.
Marijuana should be legal for recreational use

I am assuming rebuttals in Rd 3, so I will make my own contentions in this round. 1. Marijuana is a non-lethal drug. Virtually no one has died from smoking marijuana. Stephen Sidney, MD, associate director for research for Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., in the Sept 20 issue of The British Medical Journal states that "the current knowledge base does not support the assertion that it has any notable adverse public health impact in relation to mortality," No one dies from a 'fatal marijuana overdose'. Since it cant kill you, why make it illegal? 2. Marijuana has relatively mild side effects. It is also non-toxic to humans. Dr. Mark Sircus says this in regards to marijuana use, "...a low risk profile is evident from the literature available. Serious complications are very rare...". 4. Marijuana is almost never addictive. 'In 1944, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia commissioned research to be performed by the New York Academy of Science. Among their conclusions: they found marijuana did not lead to significant addiction in the medical sense of the word. They also did not find any evidence marijuana led to morphine, heroin or cocaine addiction.'- CNN News .In fact, tobacco is three times as addictive, according to Dr. Sanjay Gupta. 5. Alcohol and cigarettes are addictive, but they are legal. If we want to be consistent in our values, then its a no-brainer that marijuana should be legalized. 6. Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. If we can have guns, and cigs, and beer, and play football (linked to CTE and fatality), then why not?
Marijuana should be legal for recreational use

Contention 1: Marijuana should not be legal for recreational use because the side effects that are brought by it can be life endangering. One statistic suggests that smoking marijuana can increase one's heart rate by as much as two times for up to three hours.[1] The recreational use of marijuana could endanger the lives of those who may have heart conditions. Another side effect found in marijuana would be from the aspect of smoking the drug. The smoke will cause the lungs to be irritated and may lead to respiratory issues in the future.[2] It can be claimed that marijuana may lower pain of certain cancers and diseases, or even to be used as a medical substance, however I ask that this claim is not brought in as a contention due to the fact that this debate's main focus is regarding the recreation use rather than the medical use. If a doctor feels marijuana can be a healthy medicinal supplement, then that would be a different story. The claim that marijuana can be taxed and help our country make some much needed capital is also invalid given the fact that the health risks behind marijuana are by far much more important to worry about rather than allowing the focus to be upon tax revenue.
Marijuana should be legal for recreational use

In summation, We live in a world of risks. Everything we do can harm us. Look at the statistics of vehicular fatalities. Look at the danger of drowning, or injuring yourself during sports. We have guns, which can be used to kill others, even accidentally at times. We eat sugary, fatty, chemical-laced food. We drink sugar-water and food coloring mixes (soda). We drink alcohol, a substances that impairs the mind's ability to think clearly. We smoke tobacco, which is proven to cause lung and mouth cancer, and can often kill. How is marijuana any different? Marijuana is not addictive, like alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is not, in and of itself, a 'gateway' drug. I have shown this through multiple sources. The people who use these drugs may be more likely to move on to other drugs, but through their own choice, not any fault of marijuana. Con conceded my point when he said this- ' . .. have been urged in some way or another to begin using a different hard drug. ' 'Urged', not addicted. In America, where I am from, we have the freedom to pursue happiness. To some people, marijuana is happiness. To continue to outlaw marijuana is both unconstitutional and contrary to the Declaration of Independence. While I am not someone who has smoked or used marijuana, nor someone who plans to, I recognize the basic right to do what I want with my body. It's not bothering you, so let others be happy. I rest my case. Thanks you as well, this has been a lot of fun, and intellectually stimulating.