BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Challenger Chooses

Your welcome, per the thanks in advance.Thanks in delay to my opponent for the debate.Pro and I both agreed to debate Pro's #3 topic, "God does not exist."Pro and I also agreed to debate a particular definition of god listed in the definitions below.Definitionsexist - have objective reality or being.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...god - a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...superhuman - above or beyond what is human; having a higher nature or greater powers than humans have.http://www.dictionary.com...being - existence.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...*Burdens*Pro has to show that god, as defined in this debate, does not exist.Therefore, as Con in this debate, I accept to negate the resolution by affirming that there is an existence that has greater powers than humans, is worshiped for having power over nature and human fortunes, and has objective being, in reality.I'll even add that god, as defined in this debate, played a crucial role in the formation of the earth, the origins of life on earth, and the formation of earth's atmosphere.Pro can start their case, and then I'll start mine.May the better argument win.
LD DEBATE IS SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER FORMS OF DEBATE

"That itself is alot of BS. LD debaters have to be committed to success as well, i don't think that LD debaters WANT to fail..... you also have to research alot as well. You have to use evidence in your cases or else you will fail. In this you also have to memorize your evidence and others' as well.", Yes you research, but the debate must never be driven by evidence, it must be driven by who is more convincing. "---First, LD does have it's spreaders. Like I said befor you have to memorize evidence in LD as well. AND... spreading is for those who want to be cheap. Spreading isn't arguing it's throwing enough at a person so that they cannot possibly respond. LD is superior because judges tend to look negativly towards cheap debating while policy favors it. ", spreading isn't weak, if you have two spreaders against eachother. It is a battle of greatness and the most information from both sides. "---What other reasons? Seeing as there arn't reasons why it's hard it isn't the hardest. LD involves alot more debate, Policy is debating like pokemon cards because it's who has the best evidence that wins. You agree that parli is not superior to either LD or policy so we won't debate that. ", It is not pokemon cards, do you have any idea the amount of refutation it takes in policy to win. The better evidenc does not always win, when it comes to refutation of that evidence. Because everyone has the same evidence in most cases.
LD DEBATE IS SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER FORMS OF DEBATE

1.Policy debaters have to be committed to success and research in order to maybe get ahead in the game of debate. Most L.D.'s can just B.S. rounds. ---That itself is alot of BS. LD debaters have to be committed to success as well, i don't think that LD debaters WANT to fail..... you also have to research alot as well. You have to use evidence in your cases or else you will fail. In this you also have to memorize your evidence and others' as well. 2. Policy debaters have to make their cases to a point to be able to go up against other debaters with those cases. I.E., they run Health care case, so you have a counter health care case. In L.D. you do that sometimes, policy, you have to do that all the time. ---I don't see how this makes policy superior, but i will argue it anyway. You also have to do this ALL the time in LD. You have to know what cases to run and how they will clash against specific other cases. Some cases work better against certain others i.e. deterrance against nuke war. 3. Policy debaters have to memorize all the evidence they use and write 8 minute speeches in some cases off the top of their head plus, it has to be fast. L.D. sometimes has spreaders, policy always needs spreaders. ---First, LD does have it's spreaders. Like I said befor you have to memorize evidence in LD as well. AND... spreading is for those who want to be cheap. Spreading isn't arguing it's throwing enough at a person so that they cannot possibly respond. LD is superior because judges tend to look negativly towards cheap debating while policy favors it. 4.Policy debate is the hardest debate type in high school, by far, for all the reason plus more. ---What other reasons? Seeing as there arn't reasons why it's hard it isn't the hardest. LD involves alot more debate, Policy is debating like pokemon cards because it's who has the best evidence that wins. You agree that parli is not superior to either LD or policy so we won't debate that. IT IS OFFICIALLY LD VS. POLICY FROM HERE ON OUT
LD DEBATE IS SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER FORMS OF DEBATE

Policy is not like playing with pokemon cards. Policy is the best form of debate along side Parlimentary debate in college. Policy is superior to L.D. in this list 1.Policy debaters have to be committed to success and research in order to maybe get ahead in the game of debate. Most L.D.'s can just B.S. rounds. 2. Policy debaters have to make their cases to a point to be able to go up against other debaters with those cases. I.E., they run Health care case, so you have a counter health care case. In L.D. you do that sometimes, policy, you have to do that all the time. 3. Policy debaters have to memorize all the evidence they use and write 8 minute speeches in some cases off the top of their head plus, it has to be fast. L.D. sometimes has spreaders, policy always needs spreaders. 4.Policy debate is the hardest debate type in high school, by far, for all the reason plus more. I will not get into parli, because I am disgusted that he thinks policy is playing with pokemon cards.
is avenged sevenfold is better then mettalica

Metallica is known for pioneering the thrash metal sound, which is one of the the most popular sub genres within heavy metal [1]. This in turn has inspired a similar sound amongst countless other bands. They are continually cited as being among the biggest influences of almost every popular metal band, which means they are observed by each new cohort of metal heads who find something accessible in their back catalog. Indeed Metallica has been popular for more than 30 years [2] and they are considered among the most popular metal band of all time. In fact some believe there will never be another metal band as big as Metallica for legitimate (logistical) reasons [3]. While popularity alone does not dictate which band is better, we can reasonably assume that being widely regarded as among the best by many is indicative of recognizable talent and prestige. Metallica ranks as #61 of Rolling Stone's best artists whereas Avenged Sevenfold is not recognized anywhere on the list [4]. Amongst metal fans, Metallica consistently ranks within the top 5 best bands whereas AS is almost always ranked lower. One popular metal site online ranks Metallica as the 4th best metal band, while Avenged Sevenfold doesn't even break the top twenty-five [5]. Metallica has a lot of fans. As of December 2012, they are the third-best-selling music artist since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking sales in 1991, selling a total of 54.26 million albums in the U.S. [6]. They have won critical acclaim with their first four albums, and in 2009 they were inducted into the Rock-and-Roll Hall of Fame [7]. "Metallica has released nine studio albums, four live albums, five extended plays, 26 music videos, and 37 singles. The band has won eight Grammy Awards and five of its albums have consecutively debuted at number one on the Billboard 200. The band's eponymous 1991 album has sold over 16 million copies in the United States, making it the best-selling album of the SoundScan era. Metallica ranks as one of the most commercially successful bands of all time, having sold over 110 million records worldwide" [8]. Creatively, the band is known for taking risks and inventing new sounds within the rock/metal genre. Their playing style includes fast tempos, complex guitar solos and overall aggressive musicianship which gives them a unique sound to be desired. Their consistency and longevity prove their talent and ability to evolve over time along with their audiences, including mainstream audiences in addition to metal fans. Avenged Sevenfold has not put out any music that has captured the attention or significance that Metallica has, nor are they intrinsically better musicians. [1] http://heavymetal.about.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.metalsucks.net... [4]http://www.rollingstone.com... [5] http://www.metalsucks.net... [6] http://www.blabbermouth.net... [7] https://metallica.com... [8] http://www.smh.com.au...
The United States Government distributes welfare in an unfair matter.

You have failed once again to site any sources, so let me do so for you http://aspe.hhs.gov... That is a link to your welfare statistics from the governments reports. Your numbers are wrong, first let me say that while blacks make a higher percentage of the people receiving welfare they make up a smaller number. Second, for the vast majority welfare isn't a sit on their butts and do nothing type of situation. It doesn't last forever, a lot of it is food stamps, most of it deals with people who are looking for work or because of economy can't find work, yet you, while seeing poverty have taken this discussion to be something of race and votes. You have a taken a personal and emotional stance to something that could of have been verified by looking at numbers or taking 4 minutes to search google. Also, please support your facts with sites that back you, actual polls, something that can be verified. Figurative numbers have no place in a debate, your argument is easily torn down by the simple inability to find any basic information. And, your attack on numbers, sir you are talking about your personal experiences and than making a broad based statement about the welfare system. On the first statement yes of course, unfair, on everything else you are completely misguided. You have brought this into a race debate, you have provided only random rhetoric heard from a few party heads and regurgitated the information to a very blanket, arrogant and ignorant view of society. Sure, you may have seen things you didn't like, I do not disagree with that, but to go from seeing things that were bad to making a general statement on the welfare system, even though I believe that it is unfair, you have propped up your position with such a poor foundation that a few minutes of critical thinking and 10 minutes of researching throws your argument for a serious re-visioning.
The United States Government distributes welfare in an unfair matter.

I had to re read your post a few times, and I am going to request some very simple things from you. I would like you to back up your numbers. I will make particular reference to the 90% choose to remain unemployed, also if you would like to find the "criteria" for government assistance. Also, what race receives the most welfare? Are you meaning all types of government assistance? Food stamps, how about medicaid? Do you have any information to back up these claims that these people are doing nothing? Please support your objective claims, because while the welfare system is unfair, it is unfair to all, not just a select few. Please support these claims you have made with the numbers, because numbers don't lie, people do.
The United States Government distributes welfare in an unfair matter.

It is human nature to help those that are less fortunate. This goes to say that as civilized human beings, we are supposed to help those that need it (IE a single parent who makes barely enough to survive). Since the dawn of the Great Depression, the United States government has gone through great lengths to provide aid to those that need it. It may seem hypo-critical to say the government distributes this aid unfairly. After all, I have made it clear that giving aid is human nature. What we often overlook is the true fact of government aid. Often times, our government will provide aid to one group of people based on race, social class, and geographical location. Allow me to go deeper into this claim. The southern united states is among the poorest geographical location in the United States. One such location is the Appalachian Mountain Range, were the average family income is less than $20,000. The men, women, and children of Appalachia struggle to make ends meet, and the government turns a blind eye to them. These people supposedly do not "qualify and/or meet the requirements" for government welfare. Why is this? Well, the people who call these mountains home go unnoticed to the American people because in reality, we really do not know they exist. Often times, the people who live in these mountains are secluded, living deep in the woods were outside Americans basically do not go. They live in shanties and shacks, often times were their ancestors have called home for centuries. So what does all this mean? Politicians in Washington DC only really care about how voters view them, most at least. The tragic part is the Ghetto in the bad part of town is something we can all think of. We can all picture the high crime rates, the "poverty", and the unemployment. That is why the people who live in the "hood" get the majority of welfare, because they appear as though they meet the "criteria" for welfare. Because we can all view how poor the people who call these crime riddled neighborhoods home are, we can inevitably view the politicians that support giving them welfare as heroes. Lets face the facts though. 90% of the people on welfare prefer to remain unemployed. Why not after all? The government pays you to do absolutely nothing. So while the majority of the so called needy are lounging around, the people of the Appalachian mountains and areas such as that are left scrounging for ends meet. The sad truth is they simply do not live in the right area, nor are they the right color or race, and nor are they known by the public to be as poor as they truly are. The government ignores their needs because they offer no incentive to the government. This is why the distribution of aid by the government is truly unfair.
EPA consolidating with the Department of Energy

It's obvious that my opponent(with his numerous typographical errors) didn't take time to proofread his arguments. Rebuttal: Air quality standards review-The fact that the EPA doesn't rely on actual scientists is exactly why we need to get rid of it. For example, the EPA ignores the fact that the well-respected institute CERN reported that global warming isn't caused by human activity. Government regulation isn't the way to cleaner air. According to the Project for Economic Freedom, the most economically free countries have much cleaner environments than the least free. Texas had the biggest reduction in emissions and also puts the least regulation on its businesses and factories. The free market, not the EPA, is best at improving the environment. Fuel economy: Tyranny shouldn't be OK at either the state or federal level: fuel economy government mandates do not contribute to a productive economy. Instead, they crush job creation at its core and increase the cost of gasoline. The EPA has unreliable estimates because it is a government organization. Thus, it is not held accountable when it screws up. Therefore, the EPA has little incentive to thoroughly test fuel economy. Independent corporations do a much better job at measuring fuel economy because if they screw up, they could go out of business. Global warming: Regardless of who said what, you never refuted my evidence from CERN that global warming is caused by cosmic rays and not by greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, any actions by humans to reduce CO2 emissions isn't going to help cool the planet. In summary, we need jobs, not a job-killing organization like the EPA that stifles job creation. The science of global warming is unsettled at best and a lie at worst. It's time for economic freedom, and we can achieve this by eliminating the EPA. It shouldn't be consolidated because the unconstitutional organization shouldn't exist in the 1st place.
EPA consolidating with the Department of Energy

In recent years studies after studies have showed how poorly the EPA is handled and ran. Many members of Congress and Candidated have proposed eliminating the EPA altogether. Instead I have a better idea, the President, (via Excutive Order) should instruct the Department of Energy to oversee the EPA for good. After issuing the Execuitve Order the president hould make note to Congress and the American people that the Current EPA Administrator is still in charge of the EPA, but instead will assume the new title: Assistant Energy Secretary for Enviromental Protection. I feel that doing this will allow the energy Department to oversee the EPA since it is doing a poor job of helping the enviroment. I hope viewers will read the Background history of both the EPA and Department of Energy before judging this debate. Then it is my hope that viewers wille valuate the recent problems seen by the American people handled by the EPA.
EPA consolidating with the Department of Energy

The problem with the EPA is that it is doing too much in order to try to help the environment. The best way is to simply get rid of it, along with the Department of Energy. To put it concisely, why should the government have to regulate something the private sector is already doing? Air quality has improved over the years with technological innovations. Free enterprise is the best way to solve our environmental problems. The only thing the EPA does is kill jobs, and consolidating it with the Department of Energy isn't going to change that simple fact. Even the Obama administration has delayed fuel economy requirements because they would add thousands of dollars to the price of a car. These regulations are detrimental to economic growth. Why do we have to worry so much about global warming? A recent study by CERN said that cosmic rays, not human actions, are responsible for climate change. The science behind global warming is not settled, yet the EPA pretends that it is. We should also eliminate the Department of Energy along with it. The department clearly has not done its job in leading us toward energy independence. The way to get to energy independence isn't bigger government: instead, the government should allow companies to drill for more oil and mine for more coal right here in America. In summary, I believe that the EPA and the Department of Energy shouldn't be consolidated because neither were good ideas to begin with. My counter-plan is to eliminate both agencies, which would save billions of dollars and create jobs.
God's existence can be proven through indirect means.

"The universe may not have required a cause. [see above for argument] The universe may have come from another universe which did not itself require a cause. [See my R1, this point was not rebutted]" My opponents case in a nutshell. First, he contradicts himself in 2 premises. He says the universe may not have required a cause, yet his 2nd premise is that it came from another universe. The other universe is a cause. He says it didn't require a cause. But he contradicts himself again, he has already agreed if there wasn't a cause then there is infinite. He says an infinite amount of universes are here. Thats impossible. All mathematicians know its impossible to have an actual infinite. Keep that in mind. Ok, I'll attack each premise. 1)The universe may not have required a cause. My Response: My opponent has gone out of the realm of science, he would say the same for me but i'll explain. The universe needed a cause on the fact it could not start without one. He says in his above argument that causation only exists within time, therefore something outside of time started it. Exactly, the only force outside that of the natural, is the atemporal/metaphysical. W.\/e name you give it, its "God". He affirms right there. Extend my causation, potentiality vs. actuality and my motion argument. 2) The universe may have come from another universe which did not itself require a cause. My Response: Impossible, leads to infinity. My opponent is using circular argumentation, which in this case is totally flawed. I ask, how was that universe created, he would say another universe, leading to infinite amount of universes. Link this to my point of causation, top round. My opponent has failed to prove the resolution false. He never claimed an affirmative burden, therefore we both have equal weight. His logic is flawed, and circular. I have given enough evidence, scientific and mathematic to prove a God's existence. He will now try to prove a resolution/topical tactic, saying the whole God vs A God. Don't look to this argument; it doesn't attack the real meaning of our debate. lo, I've seen lots of your debates beemore, and they all start of with a resolutional defect. Its up to you, ladies and gentleman. Thank You
God's existence can be proven through indirect means.

First, let us address the issue of "God" vs. "A God". I realize that "God" can indeed refer to different gods, but it cannot refer to them all. Take, for instance, Zeus. If Zeus existed, it would be foolishness to say "God exists", because Zeus is not called "God". He is indeed _A_ god, but he is not called God, nor are any Gods except those of a few religions. And in any case but these, it would be incorrect to say that "God exists." Let's look at some sentences, you tell me which one is wrong. A gardener exists. The gardener exists. My gardener exists. Gardener exists. Some gardener exists. Hopefully it was very simple to see which of those was incorrect, and exactly how it translates to this debate. [Hint: "Gardener exists" is wrong, because "Gardener" as simply a title requires a modifier attached to it in that sentence. The same is true of "God", unless we acknowledge that it is more than a title in this case, which means my opponent has to prove a SPECIFIC god, something he has failed to do.] Now, let's talk about an argument my opponent COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD. My opponent claims that the Big Bang was the definitive beginning of time. I must ask, how are we supposed to have causation if we don't have time? Causation ONLY exists within time [the dimension of our universe], and we've decided that time did not exist before the Big Bang. Thus, why should we expect it to have a 'cause'? It lies outside time, therefore it lies outside causation. Therefore, it is fully possible that the universe did not require any outside intervention, since the Big Bang, which needed no cause, caused a chain of events that led to the present day. Just to make sure you're with me, the Big Bang didn't need a cause because time wasn't around to make it need one. Thus, no god is required here, especially one who goes by the "God" as a name. I concede to my opponent the point that the universe did not exist forever before the Big Bang. That was, literally, responding to my opponent's entire case. Here is my argument, put plain and simple: The universe may not have required a cause. [see above for argument] The universe may have come from another universe which did not itself require a cause. [See my R1, this point was not rebutted] Since either of these leaves plenty of possibility for a god to not exist through the indirect means my opponent shows, we must negate "God's existence can be proven through indirect means." "Proven" means there should be almost no doubt as to the truth of the matter, yet I have provided substantial doubt. Not to mention, my opponent is supposed to be arguing for only those gods who can be called "God" as a name, since any other gods make "God exists" a syntax error. And my opponent has certainly not proven that if there is a god, he is called "God" as a name, rather than just as a title.