BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One should be an Atheist Rather Than an Agnostic.

I thank JCMT for accepting this challenge. =====Counterarguments===== 1. Agnosticism is Epistemology >>>In short, for there to be no "agnostic class" the claim MUST be verifiable. The claim "God exists" is not verifiable, and thus there can exists an "agnostic class" on the issue.<<< However, while if one were to visually confirm the existence of fairies or snow, they do NOT have 100% absolute knowledge on it. For example, the famous skeptical scenario of the "brain-in-the-vat" states we can't have absolute knowledge of anything - because what we deem as reality can be in fact a gigantic illusion. Everyone and everything will be just part of a highly perfected illusion. Likewise, we can confirm that the claim "snow exists" is HIGHLY LIKELY, given the improbability of the brain-in-the-vat, Occam's razor, etc., but we can never be 100% absolute. In fact, knowledge (except maybe a priori statements) is all based on how likely it is to be true. So when applying this idea to God, to say that since "God exists" can't be 100% known is a meaningless conjecture. As I have pointed out, nothing can. So the LIKELINESS of that statement should be tested. Atheism basically states that the likeliness of God existing is highly improbable as is the likeliness of fairies existing. 2. Evidence Collected Thus Far >>>The existence of God does not necessitate any sort of evidence be left behind. Claiming that there should be evidence about God's existence is exactly like claiming that "a tortoise that doesn't leave footprints walked through this loam." There would be no evidence (footprints) left by the footprint-leaving-less-tortoise.<<< This is a fair claim. However, it does nothing to further my opponent's position. Essentially, this God my opponent refers to is supernatural in every way: he can not be detected and he does not leave any scientific "residue". However, if I were to argue for the existence of a supernatural bunny who likewise does not leave any scientific evidence behind, we should still disbelieve in it's existence. Simply because something is unverifiable or falsifiable does not mean we should suspend judgement on the validity of it's existence. Atheists do not deny that there is the possibility of God existing - however, as I've stated before, the possibility of it existing is slim. =====Conclusion===== I have shown that all empirical knowledge is not absolute. Thus, we shouldn't form our beliefs on something being verifiable or not, but rather on the likeliness of it existing.
Ayn Rand should have wrote a childrens book!

Ayn Rand's family was rich when Russia became communist, so she objected to the notion of her diamonds and treasure being given to the less fortunate. She's a cur. Ayn escaped to the United States before they could grasp a single penny from her cold miserly hands. I can see her own country thinbking of her as evil- she wasn't willing to go along with their great Marxist experiment. Her books- "We The Living," in particular, are biased and show just how petty she wasWe The Living isn't even a novel, it's a two thousand word autobiography about how communist Russia sucked. How are we supposed to know who was right and who was wrong during the Cold War? I'd say America was just as evil as Communist Russia. She founded Libertarianism, which is a guise for republican pigs to hide behind when they don't want to admit they're filthy, evil republicans. I bet she was best pals with Joe McCarthy and they went out and plastered signs on every wall. You can't compare communism to fascism, they're different concepts. Communism is a lot better.
Ayn Rand should have wrote a childrens book!

Ayn Rands family was robbed of all the wealth her father worked hard to earn for them. The communist proletariat thugs made it impossible for them to earn a decent living for themselves, but at least her family did what they could so Ayn could get an education abroad and make a decent living for herself. I find it difficult to reason that Ayn Rand was a traitor of a country that robbed her of her wealth and considered her family to be evil because they were entrepreneurs and Jewish. If writing propagandist speeches for Joe McCarthy put food on my plate, then I wouldn't snub my nose at the opportunity, and furthermore, I'm not even sure that she did write anything for McCarthy because she didn't really even like him! My opponent seems to be a communist apologist, but simultaneously recognizes that the living conditions in Russia were terrible at best. I suppose my opponent would say that any Jews who left nazi germany before the war was a traitor because they didn't try to improve conditions back home.
The Nazi's were evil.

Nazi's suck. They killed all the Jews and made them dead and that's not alright with me. The Jews loved God and didn't afraid of anything so they didn't need to become an hero. Indeed dialectical critical realism may be seen under the aspect of Foucauldian strategic reversal-of the unholy trinity of Parmenidean/Platonic/Aristotelean provenance; of the Cartesian-Lockean-Humean-Kantian paradigm; of foundationalisms (in practice, fideistic foundationalisms) and irrationalisms (in practice, capricious exercises of the will-to-power or some other ideologically and/or psycho-somatically buried source) new and old alike; of the primordial failing of western philosophy, ontological monovalence, and its close ally, the epistemic fallacy with its ontic dual; of the analytic problematic laid down by Plato, which Hegel served only to replicate in his actualist monovalent analytic reinstatement in transfigurative reconciling dialectical connection, while in his hubristic claims for absolute idealism he inaugurated the Comtean, Kierkegaardian and Nietzschean eclipses of reason, replicating the fundaments of positivism through its transmutation route to the superidealism of a Baudrillard. OK, now that's out of the way, I want to explain myself. There was a debate earlier where someone did something similar to this as an experiment to see if anyone actually reads debates or votes strictly on topic. They failed however, because it wasn't clear who to vote for if you actually read the debate. So, this is my attempt at a redo. If you read this far, vote con (not for me) in this debate. We shall see what percentage of votes go for me and judge how accurate voting is. My opponent should defend that Nazi's are OK for at lest a paragraph in each debate and then spam a quote of some kind. (the preceding and following quotes are the winners of most pretentious writing awards) With the last gasp of Romanticism, the quelling of its florid uprising against the vapid formalism of one strain of the Enlightenment, the dimming of its yearning for the imagined grandeur of the archaic, and the dashing of its too sanguine hopes for a revitalized, fulfilled humanity, the horror of its more lasting, more Gothic legacy has settled in, distributed and diffused enough, to be sure, that lugubriousness is recognizable only as languor, or as a certain sardonic laconicism disguising itself in a new sanctification of the destructive instincts, a new genius for displacing cultural reifications in the interminable shell game of the analysis of the human psyche, where nothing remains sacred.
The Nazi's were evil.

you're forgetting some very important facts about this debate and about Hitler. Because of this, you cannot reasonably defend that the Nazis were evil. * That loser wasn't even a German, he was Austrian * Hitler served in the German army in WWI (as a private), and got pwned with tear-gas by the Allies and since he was dumb as heck he assumed it was nerve-gas and spent months in a hospital cyring to Linkin Park. * A dog saved his life from being hit by a mortar round. * Hitler lieks mudkipz * He was a vegetarian. Not out of principal but because he had horrible IBS and gastritis and his stomach couldn't handle meat. He also had terrible breath and smelled bad. * His dog was named 'Blondie'. Quiz your history teacher on that one! * He actually wanted to become an artist * He painted houses before he became emo * He was addicted to meth and had syphilis, just like every other white supremacist * If Hitler would have lived out his dream of becoming an artist, he would have over 9000 more pageviews than Snapesnogger * Hitler only had one testicle * Hitler decided to start a little war just for the lulz * Hitler, because of his definition of a Jew, was a Jew. And since Jews did WTC, Hiter is responsible for 9/11.
The Nazi's were evil.

Whether you like him or not, you have to admit that Hitler did kill a lot of people. During his dictatorial reign of Nazi Germany he exterminated somewhere around 6 million Jewish people and about 6 million other undesirables (gypsies, commies, n00bs, and emo kids) in the Holocaust, invented the Volkswagen, and was the first modern person to almost own the entire world with militaristic slapping in the form of air raids and armies. On the other hand, Hitler was also a sensitive man. When he was younger, Hitler went to art school. He was a vegetarian, a non-smoker, and also had a moustache. If Hitler were alive today, he'd listen to The Cure, The Smiths, and Depeche Mode. On the downside, he dropped out of art school, slept until three in the afternoon every day, and threw temper tantrums if you tried to wake him up. Though rejected as an artist, he has been wholeheartedly embraced as an accomplished loser. Which is basically the same thing. VOTE PRO VOTE PRO VOTE PRO, that's what I meant to say Hitler is also one of the most talked about people on internet forums and message boards. No matter what the subject is, there is no doubt that Hilter's name will come up eventually in conversation OTI. It is also customary on the internet to post Hitler's likeness repeatedly as a sign of friendship and respect. In short, the internets <3 Hitler.
The Nazi's were evil.

The idea that Nazis were "evil" simply because of one particular set of actions they went about at one particular time in their history is absurd. We all make mistakes, and we all have the right to expect people not to judge us based solely off of our mistakes, without also taking into consideration our successes. Consider the following: -The Nazis brought political order and economic success to a nation that was suffering from a massive depression brought on by World War I. -The Nazis' central goal was to unite all of Europe, something that has recently come to fruition through the European Union, which not many people would call "evil". -The Nazis eloquently and succinctly rejected the outmoded philosophies of various pretentious medieval and enlightenment philosophers who sought naught but the total destruction of the worth of the individual, thus ushering on a Golden Age of sorts in terms of individual value in the eyes of society. -The Nazis were strongly opposed to such outdated rhetoric as, "Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, like a diamond in the sky. Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are." I must commend them for this brave stance. -The Nazis, according to encyclopediadramatica.com, "did it for the lulz." In my professional opinion as a triple doctorate in Lulzography, Lulzology, and Lulzmatics is that this can only bring about good results.
Music Debate

Hmmm... I'm guessing my opponent forgot to check this debate, but it's kind of my fault for starting the debate when the other person is not online. Anyway, let me entertain you :http://www.youtube.com...Coldplay - Paradise, one of my favorites from the 21st century.http://www.youtube.com...Adele - Rolling in the deep, again, I think one of the best songs in the recent years.http://www.youtube.com...Bruce Springsteen - Streets of Phidelphia, this one is not for the debate, because it's from the 20th century, still, it's a great song.
Music Debate

Hello All! It has been a very long time since I have done a debate so I thought that this debate would be good to get back in the swing of things. This debate shall be very fun. Use the best music you can think of. Only 21st century music is allowed. There is a max of 750 characters (so you can say a sentence or two about the song) You must post your argument within thirty minutes (this is so it shall be quick) The first song I believe is perfect to get to kick things off. "Girl on Fire" by Alicia Keys. Good luck to my opponent.http://www.youtube.com...
Socialism

Your argument is simply incorrect as socialism is in no way opposed to the free-market. Whilst many socialists advocate for state intervention and regulation within markets it is not inherent to socialism as both an economic and social theory. The only thing socialism is truly concerned with is ownership of the means of production. Socialism in its most basic form only opposes private ownership of businesses and has never directly advocated interventionism or command economies. The closest to a socialist ideal we see today are cooperative businesses that are owned and run by their employees. The removal of CEOs and individual ownership of businesses in no way threatens competition or contradicts the free-market. In many ways socialism is a superior form of market economy since it makes it harder for both embezzlement and corruption when the company is directed by its entire staff. All socialism wishes to do is dilute power and ownership to the employees and decentralise businesses. With the state of modern capitalism rapidly reducing workers to expendable cogs as well as the sharp increase in the service industry which to many employed in it is deeply demeaning socialism seems like the logical solution. Give workers and employees a choice and a voice directly within the companies they work as a part of. Socialism is by no means against the free-market and by no means for regulation; all socialism is for is workers being treated as a real part of the company who deserve to own it just as much as the people who sit on the board. Workers deserve rights and to participate and control the direction of their companies and socialism wants nothing more than that.
Is there really such a thing as corporate welfare.

I thank the opposition for their round! General Opening: 1. It should be noted that there is a vagueness in the resolution provided. By this I mean there is an "ambiguity" in the resolution, which then gives me the permission to freely interpret it so long as I remain in the bounds of reasonableness.[1] 2. The leader of the opposition has not presented any positive material in the first round. 3. There are only 1, 000 characters allowed, which is unfair. Premise: 1. I understand the resolution literally, which then places on me a simple burden: to give an example of corporate welfare. 2. As corporate welfare is simply the government giving tax cuts, or other benefits I need only give an example of this. Evidence 1: Amazon, Microsoft, and GM 1. The above mentioned corporations got over 2 billion dollars of benefits.[2] The source also gives 9 other mentions, and proves that corporate welfare does exist. [1]http://tinyurl.com... [2]http://tinyurl.com...
Rap Battle 19: JimShady vs.NDECD1441

I'm solid like a brick, and you're a LEGO prick You'll break into pieces and rejoin as a djck You might be a *little* hot, but I'm a candle wick... You might burn me a little, but I can handle it! Can't you see that you're in a fantasy? Only in a dream could you ever stand to me I'll make you run panicking, frantically And fvck your rule of "No profanities." How can it be possible for you to win? You knew this gig is just too huge to win My spew is lit, it's just too legit You spew some shjt, can you just quit? I'm the real Coca-Cola, you're the Wal*Mart brand... Cheaper maybe, but you leave everyone scammed You're nothin' special... a mere Stan You ain't the real Shady, so don't go stand
Rap Battle 19: JimShady vs.NDECD1441

RationalThinker was the only guy who completed my debate What50 kept forfeiting which I pretty much hate But let's stop talking about them. It's about you and I No profanities. It's time to die! I let you leave me, you start to stumble Try to escape but your mind's a jumble Reach out to god but your hands are crumbled Holding the gun cus your brain's been juggled Reality's senses are a broken puzzle The afterlife just down the tunnel Ill dig your grave Now pass the shovel I am in school now, so I am going to close. The challenge you made, the fail you chose. Time for round 2. Jump up hit the sky. I know who is going to win, it's time to say bye.
Rap Battle 19: JimShady vs.NDECD1441

Time to get to business, lay it out with quickness complex raps like physics, so strong they grant fitness. I'll kill NDEC and win this, and leave not a single witness No more spittin' tidbits, Now you're gonna shjt bricks... What you listening to with that boom box at your side Prolly my rap, cause your own shjt made you cry. You've said Em is your role model, in him you confide Aside from confide, what else IN him you got, don't lie!!! You act like you're a rap vet, gimme a break You haven't seen rap yet, it'll give you a quake, It'll give you a fast death, with no chance of wake prepare to get fact checked... this battle is cake. Rational Thinker got you beat, so does What50 Go against squonk or Masterful, you'll be in a jiffy You're an easy win, so fighting you is thrifty... So I gotta say thanks for the Elo you give me!
Rap Battle 19: JimShady vs.NDECD1441

Rap Battle, Jim vs. NDECD1441. Standard rules will apply... 2 rounds of rap (DDO rounds 2 and 3), 16 bars, 1st round acceptance, and fight hard. Forfeiture is punishable by extreme shaming and death by stoning. Also, to the voters: no vote comments needed, but it is encouraged.
Rap Battle 19: JimShady vs.NDECD1441

First of all, for the stan part, I didnt drive into a lake Since I pity you Ima go easy on you for everybody's sake You aint hard to beat it aint much of a feat I can guarantee that you are gonna vote for cakerman on our treat. I beat both of you in the comments section below You go hard but I know that it is just for show When I see your votes everybody will know It takes 2 people just to beat an 11 year old I aint running. Im spitting 16 bars Chances of you being smart are worse than have a llama run you over with a car Im the king ima bring all the dead back to life But ill just leave you there lying stabbed by a knife Ima leave my final four bars spitting this verse You know you aint the best man you are the cursed Like cakerman said its chess and the game ima take Rook to A5. Checkmate.
It is more logical to assume that god exists than not

This debate is whether or not it is logical to assume god exists rather than not. These are some ground rules: -Please no trolling, Thank you -I am AGAINST the resolution (as I am debating Con) -Round 1 is for acceptance only -Don't forfeit unless you have some specific argument that involves you forfeiting (?) -The god I'm referring to is one of Christianity I look forward to a great debate!
My presidential candidate of choice MUST believe in evolution.

Okay, that's fair. You're right. My argument was broad and it did generalize. I am speaking specifically of people who believe the world was formed six thousand years ago and that we popped up on the planet as we are today. A person who believes this is not fit to be president in my opinion. As long as we all agree that it is a presidents job the represent the people and that the job should come before his/her personal beliefs. I believe somone of the this opinion can not put aside their personal beliefs and represent the country fairly. I believe, and Prez Bush provide evidence, that someone who believes only what they read from the bible can not lead tis country well, or represent it's people fairly. A little over half of the country does believe we evolved and that our earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The reason I made the comment about logic is because I don't understand how someone can take in all the scientific knowledge we have on this topic and still deny it all solely on the basis of their belief.
My presidential candidate of choice MUST believe in evolution.

When choosing a candidate to support, I first discard the ones who don't believe in evolution. If you believe the universe was created six thousand years ago, I can not possibly take you seriously. I think it's important to vote for someone who believes AT LEAST in evolution. How can we have someone lead our country in a fair, logical and reasonable mannor when they don't use logic to come to a reasonable conclusion on the origin of our world? I am not debating about a belief in god or the existence of a god.
My presidential candidate of choice MUST believe in evolution.

If Bush's religious beliefs got in the way of his presidency that in no way means all other candidates would have the same problem. every president we've ever had has been christian and not every one of them has had a conflict. many presidents we've had have been creationists. -George Washington - Set an excellent standard for future presidents -John Adams - wrote the federalist papers and fought for a U.S. declaration of independence -James Madison - Father of the constitution, "The Great Comprimiser" -Abraham Lincoln - Held our nation together in time of civil war -John F. Kennedy - Advanced cause of civil rights in U.S., resolved many conflicts with soviet union (cuban missile crisis esp.) -Ronald Reagan - financially rebuilt this country, restored faith in american political system -George H.W. Bush - Bolstered economy, advanced the cause of freedom abroad. all these creationists were great leaders who helped forge us into the great nation we are today. You can cannot argue that a creationist is unfit to preside over this country, because many have and many have done incredible things for this country.
My presidential candidate of choice MUST believe in evolution.

I still believe strongy that it will. Mitt Romney for instance just gave a speech, not about how his Mormon religion will NOT affect his presidentcy, but how the fact that it's a Christian religion WILL. They seem to not have ay interest in saying at any point that their religion will be seperate from their decisions as president. Our own president got us into a war with a coutry most of the population couldn't locate on a map. He tricked us and it is because he thinks he has some bigger Christian purpose that no one else was aware of. All the pentacostals are voting for someone based on faith, why is it unreasonable for me to vote based on belief as well? Especially when BY belief, happens to be one supported by the scientific community. All people look to science for answers but when there's one that rivals a 2,000 year old book, then it can't be true. I can't support someone of that mindset. If you can deny a world of scientists, most of whom are devouted to finding the truth, every day of their lives, then how can you be trusted to make a decision about war, or the world? I guess this debate has evolved to include the denial of any scientific theory. I hope I'm not coming off as offensive. Thank you for reconsidering your earlier statement. I found no offense in it.
Time travel is real.

If you use time travel to mean the passing of time, then technically we are travelling through time right now. That is not what the the term "time travel" describes. You have purposely misrepresented the concept of time travel by misinterpreting the term "time travel" to mean any travelling through time. If that was the case then we are currently undergoing time travel at this very moment, I am travelling into the future, as are you. The intended meaning of time travel is the ability to travel to arbitrary points in time in the future or past. If your time travel is limited to between an extra 0.00 to 0.02 seconds into the future (only with a huge amount of energy and for brief intervals) its not really time travel. Therefore my original arguments stand and time travel is not real.