BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Agnosticism should be considered as genuine a religion as Christianity

Using myself as an example to prove my point, I do have faith. I'm glad you brought this point up, because I see how faith is used by people and I am usually disappointed. Here is what faith means to me, and how I can employ it while keeping the humble opinion that I don't truly know if God exists: Faith is believing that if I stick to my principles (most notably the seven cardinal virtues - prudence, fortitude, justice, temperance, hope, charity, faith) then I will continue to prosper, find love, wealth, success, and happiness. My faith tells me that if I treat another person well, even if there are no visible benefits, that I will do well in the future because of this. Now I certainly hope you don't intend on saying that I don't have any sense of faith, or that agnostics cannot employ the virtue of faith. I realize that faith has somewhat lost its meaning, mostly due to religions calling themselves "faiths", thus implying that their members are inherently virtuous simply due to them following their religion. But faith is not synonomous with religion. You can have faith IN a religion, but whether or not the principles of that religion are going to help you or not is a different story. Tell you the truth, I would rather use the seven cardinal virtues than the ten christian commandments. The seven virtues are much more helpful, precise and moral than the ten commandments, but that is for another debate. So you see, faith is very much a part of my religion, and I would argue that I use it better than most religious people do. "Since it is impossible to practice agnosticism beyond a faith, it should not be a religion" Your short response in round two, summed up by this line, leads me to conclude that you have all but abandoned winning this debate aside from this point that will hopefully save your position. I will beat this horse a little more to death, since you have no more points to refute. My religion, agnosticism, believes that there is or is not a god, parralel universes, supernatural beings, aliens, etc. but it takes the position that mankind has not enough evidence to show beyond a shadow of a doubt, one way or the other, whether or not they do or do not exist. Instead of putting my faith in a pre-packaged set of beliefs perpetuated by an ancient book filled with old fables that could have been easily fabricated, I instead put my energy and faith into the seven cardinal virtues, since they are infallible and produce consistent positive results. I have faith that the universe is real and perhaps does have a Christian "transcendant reality", but my failure to assert that I do know for sure should not make a legal, moral, or practical difference. Thank you for debating me, this was an enjoyable dialogue.
Agnosticism should be considered as genuine a religion as Christianity

Ok, so no definitions since they will always differ. Well... Religion, I suppose we both agree, is a series of beliefs. And agnosticism, I will accept from you, a believing in something, but can't discover what. Fair enough? But there is something else that goes along with religion. Faith, is a belief. Religion, is the practice of a belief. So yes, Agnosticism is a faith, but not a religion. Why? There is no practice. How could you practice agnosticism beyond a belief in unbelievability? You can't, at least to my knowledge. Since it is impossible to practice agnosticism beyond a faith, it should not be a religion.
Agnosticism should be considered as genuine a religion as Christianity

Feel free to prove me wrong here Agnosticism is Greek for without (a) knowledge (gnosticism) In the sense of religion, this means that Agnostics simply claim they do not know if God exists or what aspects of him are true. Correct? Assuming this is, here is the definition of religion "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power" Online Etymology Dictionary "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny" WordNet "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." American Heritage Dictionary These three definitions all claim that religion resides on a belief. Now, in a religion, people BELIEVE what is taught. Agnostics aren't sure, and don't believe. Thus, agnostics do not portray any belief, thus, they aren't a religion.
Soccer(pro) vs Basketball(con)

Basketball is healthierBoth soccer and basketball are healthy. Basketball was designed as an alternative for soccer and other sports, and it was designed to be good for physical health. Forbes magazine listed the 10 healthiest sports. Basketball ranked #6, and soccer was not listed at all [1]. In a basketball, the players run back and forth a lot of times, so in the end they cover the same distances as soccer players.Basketball is saferInjuries happen both in soccer and basketball. But because soccer is more of a contact sport, more injuries happen. I have given proof that there are more casualties in soccer compared to basketball [2]. My opponent did not rebut this statistic.AccessibleYou do not need much to play soccer or to play basketball. For soccer, you need a ball and two goals, but you can get away with something that marks a goal. For basketball you also need a ball and two hoops/baskets, but any basket's will do and one could use buckets for example. Originally, basketball was played with a soccer ball, and with peach baskets [3]. But the big difference between soccer and basketball is that soccer needs a lot more space (even if you play it indoors). An NBA basketball court is28.65m x 15.24m [4], a soccer field is 105m x 68m. An indoor soccer "field" is 60.96m x 25.91m (200' x 85') popularitySoccer is indeed more popular over the world. The main reason for this is that it is a much older sport, and the sport has been spread by colonialism. So, soccer is not more popular because it is better, but because it had a better chance of being spread around. My opponent never gave a reason why more popularity means that it is a better sport.archaic soccer rulesIn soccer there is one referee and 2 line referees. Together the must cover the huge field. The main referee has absolute authority. He sometimes goes with the judgment of the line referees, because they are in a better position to see if the play was off-side. But he can always overrule the line referees. Line referees make mistakes. And often, in a quick offensive play, the main referee is not close to the ball to see if the play is offside, so he just goes with whatever the line referee says. The problem is, that if the three referees come to the wrong decision (which is quite often) then this decision cannot be overruled, even if it is clear on camera that it is the wrong decision. Here are some notorious examples: [6].Boring?Some find soccer boring, some find basketball boring. It is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find soccer boring because there are so few goals and sometimes no goals at all.ConclusionSince Basketball is healthier, less dangerous, and you need less space to do it, it is a better sport.Vote CON!!!!!I thank my opponent for this discussion and for being a good sport.[1] http://www.newsworks.org...[2] http://www.businessinsider.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://bleacherreport.com...
The economy does better than it would otherwise when the rich have control of the money

http://www.bloomberg.com... The effects of the austerity are questioned, as another country is out performing Greece, and some feel Greece needed tougher reforms. Your mistaking the recent IMF statement about what should be done in certain instances, and they are placing a higher emphasis on equality now. Equality doesn't equal a stronger economy in terms of dollars. Should we consider social equality? At one time I thought so, but now I don't see it that way. " Hansen and Libecap show that if farms had been 1,500 acres, farmers individually would have adopted the very practices that were subsequently imposed by soil conservation districts. This is important because the preponderance of small farms in the Great Plains was itself largely a legacy of federal policy- The Homestead Act, which limited claims to 160-320 acres." Daniel K. Benjamin You can read this at HTTP:// perc.org This is proof of the government policy failure that led to the Dust Bowl being as severe as it was.
The economy does better than it would otherwise when the rich have control of the money

I had no idea I was suppose to wright a research paper. This is a debate, and I have never seen a debate where people cite sources. First off you miss the point of the debate you challenged me to. " I trust the rich, before I trust the government ",said me. The Depression was caused in part by a banking collapse, but it was the dust bowl that that made things horrible. The "Dust Bowl " was a result of government policy failure. What caused the " Great Recession?" Most would agree the government programs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the cause. When ever the government get involved the people lose. Just ask the Soviets, or the North Korean citizens. China and Cuba and the Russian Federation are all going down the path that excludes social equality, and there economies grow . I would consider the International Monentary Fund or IMF as the primary authority on repairing or growing economies. They do what is right, not what the people think is right.
The economy does better than it would otherwise when the rich have control of the money

I wonder why you chose a graph that starts with 1945. That is very misleading as to the history of tax rates in the US. When people can't buy things they need for many years , such as the time of WWII, A huge boom would follow in the economy would follow. I would think implementing high tax rates in such an economy would do little to harm it. If anything the high tax rate could serve to keep growth at a sustainable level. There are to many things that fell into the 70's to know for sure just why things were getting bad. Recent shift to Fiat currency, Women's liberation, Peak oil production per capita, ect You haven't sited the primary authorities on the issue. I have not found any to cite as well. I found the articles on the success of the Flat Rate tax in Russia at the Hoover Institute website. French movie star Depardieu renounced his citizenship over insane tax rates. The rich will leave countries and go to others depending on the rates. Keeping the rich in one's country is like keeping a skilled worker at your factory, and it takes incentives to keep either.
The economy does better than it would otherwise when the rich have control of the money

The war on poverty follows the same time line as the "Reaganomics" so there is no real way to know which policy was the failure. I've have been trying to find information on how tax policies helped the Russian Federation, but I have a life to live as well. I'm not sure what your trying to defend. I can only assume you think government spending is necessary based on your arguments. I also see some equality issues. The government consumes large quantities of money in order to provide any sort of service. Business have to pay large sums of money to comply with any form of regulation. All business pass the cost on to the consumer. They have to or they would not exist. I think anyone that thinks the role of the government is to create wealth is nuts. The government might want to increase it's revenue, but it sole purpose is to hold us back. That really is the whole point of any economic model. It was to decide who gets use of limited resources.
The economy does better than it would otherwise when the rich have control of the money

This debate stems from a Reaganomics debate. I'm going to treat it as a supply side economic debate, with the possibility it could be a debate about tax policies leading to the question of who is better at spending the money (which would be the government vs anyone with money they earned to spend.) Any government can become a part of a supply side economy. Many economies are supply side and they are regulated by a government . The role of the government is usually to hold the economies back to a stable level. Government regulation adds huge costs to the consumers, and cripples an economy that has a lot of competition already. If you give a bunch of poor people money all you will see is inflation, not real growth. That is why the US has been seeing high inflation since the war on poverty.
Voting Should Be Compulsory in the USA

Im sure you all know how rarely it is that I do a serious rather than a troll debate. But now, I have decided to do a good one. As you see, the topic is whether or not voting should be compulsory. I will be Pro and you will be Con. So here are the rules and the round structure. Rules: 1. No trolling 2. No Kritik 3. No Semantics 4. No plagiarism (obviously, surprising I need to say this) 5. Forfeiture means loss Round Structure: Round 1: Pro gives guidelines, rules. Con says "I accept" Round 2: Pro gives arguments/Con gives arguments Round 3: Refutations by both sides Round 4: Counter Refutation Round 5: Summary and Final Words In order to accept topic, you must comment in comments section and I will choose my opponent form that pool <3
Animal Testng

To Jennifer(MickeyMouse) : I'm sorry that you did not get to finish your argument in time. You must have been very busy. Why don't you just put up a comment with your argument? Anyways, it was just nice debate which I've enjoyed very much. And you are such a good debater, aren't you? ^_^;; Well, for this round I will just summerize 3 arguments for the animal testing. First, it was about animals' rights that people have to respect. Second, it was about the inaccuracy of animal testing which can also harm the patients when having the actual surgery. Lastly, it was about the ecosystem and nature getting damaged because of animals getting harmed. In summary, because of these reasons, I am very proud to propose the motion strongly. Thank you very much, everyone.
Animal Testng

Hello, guys. Hello, Jane. Well, have you heard about animal testing? Well, if you have, what do you think about it? Now, I'm going to talk about points that why I agree with animal testing. First, we can save people's lives with animal testing. Every day, thousands of people are saved from painful diseases and death by powerful medical drugs and treatments. This incredible gift of medicine would not be possible without animal testing. Despite these overwhelming benefits, however, some people are calling for animal testing to be banned because of alleged cruelty. Those against the use of animal testing claim that it is inhumane to use animals in experiments. I disagree completely. It would be much more inhumane to test new drugs on children or adults. Even if it were possible, it would also take much longer to see potential effects, because of the length of time we live compared to laboratory animals such as rats or rabbits. Second, we always eat meat so why they always say that animal testing is wrong? Some of the tests certainly seem painful, but the great majority of people on this planet eat meat or wear leather without any guilt. Where is their sympathy for animals? Furthermore, animals clearly do not feel the same way as humans, and scientists are careful to minimize stress in the animals, since this would damage their research. Thirdly, Opponents of animal testing also claim that the results are not applicable to humans. This may be partly true. Some drugs have had to be withdrawn, despite testing. However, we simply do not have alternative methods of testing. Computer models are not advanced enough, and testing on plants is much less applicable to humans than tests on animals such as monkeys. Until we have a better system, we must use animal testing. Thank you.:)
evil prisoners should be put down such as is a rabid dog, no rights or adequate clothing, bed orfood

Pro's argument rests on one idea: That criminals enjoy what their crimes. I would like evidence of this. If this is not true, then the possibility exists that they may be constructive citizens once released. Norway would is evidence that this seems to be the case. Indeed, Norway's prisons aren't nearly as miserable as ours, and they have lower recidivism rates[1]. There is also the fact that robbery may be justifiable in some instances, such as to save someone's life. 1. http://www.time.com...
heat over cool

You said that cool and cold, hot and heat are the same thing when they're not, it all depends in the way of context, if lets say I sa an attractive female I wouldn't say she is warm, or she is heat, I'd say she is hot, but when if I am referring to the temperature of a place I'd say it is hot or warm. As well as you also said that being hot if a good then, now I'll agree I enjoy being warm, but being cool/cold is good to, lets go over some things that can happen if you are to hot (warm).
A pallet of Nickels is a solid income plan

Copper has been quickly increasing in value for the past decade, as has nickel. (a Nickel is 75% copper 25% nickel) The dollar will likely continue to devalue with an expansion of the money supply as the Fed keep interest rates low and print more money. Even if there isn't above average inflation, average inflation is 3% a year. Copper and Nickel are expected to gain, not lose value in the next decade. http://www.channelnewsasia.com... http://www.metalprices.com... http://www.dailyfinance.com...
A pallet of Nickels is a solid income plan

I agree with my opponent that it is not illegal yet to melt US coins. Sure you could get more if you invested those nickels in the stock market, but it wouldn't be a solid investment. Insert unrelated semantic: Liquefied nickels are not a solid investment. However, commodity pricing has been sown to fluctuate wildly in the past, why are you so certain the metals in a nickel will increase in value? There are many rumors of inflation but it has not appeared yet....yet... Your turn PRO!
A pallet of Nickels is a solid income plan

A pallet of Nickels is a solid investment. Definitions- Investment-putting money into something with the expectation of profit. Pallet- A flat base for combining stores or carrying a single item to form a unit load for handling, transportation, and storage by materials handling equipment. A pallet of nickels=apx. 200,000=10,000 dollars worth Nickels currently hold a value of apx 145% face value. at 7.78 cents the cost of buying the nickels would be 10,000 dollars, if melted immediately for no cost they would be worth 14500. Nickels currently hold a value of 145% face value. If you hold onto these nickels for 10 years they will become worth more. It's not illegal to melt currency down. http://www.coinflation.com... http://www.coinflation.com...
Black Metal bands try too hard to look evil

As a retired Catholic priest, I oppose all forms of Satanism. This includes people who pretend to be Satanist. However, as a retired catholic priest, I am a devoted fan to Celtic frost, although I am not an Irish Catholic. My favorite song is Jesus Saves [clean] by Slayer. This is coming from a retired Catholic priest. Black metal bands do not try too hard to look evil. Corpse paint is not evil. KISS uses corpse paint. KISS, the rock band that poses as a metal band. Leather is not evil. Cowboys wear leather. Spike are evil, I will admit. But the spikes black metal bands use are fake. FAKE SPIKES ARE NOT EVIL. You say they act like a douche just for the camera. Well, I bet Kerry King is just a jerk-off in real and that is the way he acts.
Black Metal bands try too hard to look evil

Is Venom the first band that comes to mind? They are not even Black Metal nor evil. They merely used Satanic imagery for shock value and to sound evil without being evil. Same with Slayer-shock value again. Although Kerry King is open about his alliance with Satan. In essence they were posers. Celtic Frost for instance is what comes to my mind along with Bathory. Both bands served as influences for modern Black Metal. In reference to many Swedish or Norwegian bands that not only go out of their way to project evil but even claim to be Satanists of some description or another. My argument is based on the simple notion that these groups openly stand for oppression and in some extreme cases, misanthropy by often criticize main stream media for failing to understand their concept of individuality and how they claim to not establish themselves within any paticular group or other music scene. I find this hypocritical because in their efforts to stand out, they tend to all look the same. They all wear leather, they all wear spikes and most except for the few exceptions, wear corpse paint and act like a total douche just for the camera. So why is it that they claim that their motivation is not for notoriety, yet they're whole presence says otherwise?
Black Metal bands try too hard to look evil

They do not try too hard to look evil. Take the pioneer black metal band Venom. The cover on their debut album Welcome to Hell, is a picture of a goat. Goats, by the way, are not evil. You could say the album title is over-the-top, but then I'll remind you there is a village in Norway called Hell, Venom could have just as easily been referring to that. Even the name of the band, Venom, could be misinterpreted to be an "evil" name. However many bands of the eighties, such as Toto, were named after dogs. Somewhere out there, there had to be at least one dog named Venom. Speaking of Venom as a name, it is also the name of a Spider-Man character. Most people who read comics do not try to be evil.
The Second Amendment does not Protect Against Oppressive Government

I shall begin with Rebuttals :)Rebuttal:"With regards to your opening statement for R2, how else could the Second Amendment protect against oppressive government if revolution was not on the agenda? In your counterargument, could you please explain how else it could protect against oppressive government short of either a revolution, insurrection or the threat of one."The amendment was not meant to prevent an immediate threat but to defend against one that could occur in the future. As I had previously stated, the Federalists wanted a powerful federal government. The Anti-Federalists did not. The more observant anti-federalists were aware that they had just defeated the British in a war defeating and defining their war as freedom from an opressive government. Therefore in the establishment of the bill of rights, they were making sure that a situation such as what occured between the colonists and Britain could not reoccur because certain rights of the citizens were guranteed. You can clearly see this in some of the bill of rights amendments.Third Amendment:"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law"An amendment like that probably makes no sense to us today but back in the past, colonists viewed this as a violation of their rights and therefore made sure to add it to the rights which they wanted protected in the bill of rights.In your statement that colonization occured earlier than the 17th century you are more supporting my point. And though expansion was a goal in America. MANY americans wanted to avoid expansion at the risk of the slavery issue including the Republican Party before the civil war.You can't use the French and Indian War to say that the goal of the colonists was to expand because this war was fought mostly on Britain's behalf in addition to the Seven Years War. In addition this war was fought far before the bill of rights was pased and can't be compared to the colonists current state of mind after a war.Conclusion:And lastly many aspects of the argument you make are confusing me. I thought that this argument was concerned with America's attention in creating the second Amendment. Therefore why are you comparing it to ther nations.