BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian God can not be proven

"I am not saying the Christian God does not exist, he may or may not exist, I do not know...I am saying, I am unable to prove the Christian God."Pro may not be trying to say that the Christian God does not exist, but this is what Pro has to say to win this debate. Pro has to disprove God to win this debate, because the resolution pre-supposes that God does not exist, as I showed in the first round. "Seeing as rational thinker took the debate, he also must meet some burden of proof, and mainly that is to prove the Christian God." False. My only burden to undermine Pro's arguments in favor of the resolution and/ or show that Pro has not the burden of proof. Pro is committing the switching the burden of proof logical fallacy. "I am unable to prove the Christian God and Con using the Bible as a proof for the existence of the Christian God is a futile argument, as I could easily say that Allah also exists by using an alternative religious scripture, as follows."This is a straw-man. I was not using The Bible to prove that The Christian God exists. I was using The Bible to show that if The Christian God exists, he is omnipotent. Re-cap of debate so farPro has the burden of proof to establish the resolution is true. However, the resolution pre-supposes that the Christian God does not exist, because if the Christian God did exists, he is omnipotent, and thus could prove himself (and therefore can be proven). Thus, until Pro shows that the Christian God does not exist. His burden of proof has not been met.
The Christian God can not be proven

I am not saying the Christian God does not exist, he may or may not exist, I do not know... I am saying, I am unable to prove the Christian God. Seeing as rational thinker took the debate, he also must meet some burden of proof, and mainly that is to prove the Christian God. I am unable to prove the Christian God and Con using the Bible as a proof for the existence of the Christian God is a futile argument, as I could easily say that Allah also exists by using an alternative religious scripture, as follows. "Verily! I am All"h! L" il"ha illa Ana (none has the right to be worshipped but I), so worship Me, and perform As"Sal"t (Iq"mat-as-Sal"t) for My Remembrance. "Verily, the Hour is coming and My Will is to keep it hidden that every person may be rewarded for that which he strives. (Surah Ta-ha : 14,15) Does that mean that Allah is proven....No, not on your Nellie sonny Jim. And the same applies to the Christian God. I am unable to prove the Christian God. Go.
The Christian God can not be proven

"I am unable to prove the Christian God and very much doubt my opponent can either. Go"Even if neither Pro or I can prove that the Christian God exists, this does not mean that his existence cannot be proven. If The Christian God exists, he is omnipotent:“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. ”"For nothing will be impossible with God. ” - Luke 1:37 "Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure. " - Psalm 147:5 Since, if The Christian Go exists, he is omnipotent, then it follows necessarily from omnipotence that he could prove himself if he wanted to. Thus, if God exists, it would be necessarily true that The Christian God's existence can be proven. What does this mean? This means that the resolution, without additional support, begs the question against Christian Theism. Only if God does not exist, would it be true that The Christian God cannot be proven. This is because, once more, if The Christian God exists the he can be proven (he can prove himself); thus negating the resolution. Since the resolution presupposes that the Christian God does not exist, Pro must show that the Christian God does not exist, because the burden of proof is on Pro (it is not shared, as he started the debate). As it stands, the resolution has been negated.
The United States should adopt the metric system.

< > I told you, we learn the metric system anyways, because 1st of all, mathematicians and scientists use the metric system when they give talks abroad. And 2nd of all, why do you think they use it in science and math when you go to highschool? For fun? No, it's because it is more efficient. If you disagree that it is more efficient then you are contradicting what thousands of scientists say so can we not have to argue that? As to what you said about metricizing, you're right, I'm sorry. But either way your point on metricizing time has nothing to do with this debate because the metric system doesn't apply to time anywhere in the world. < > That is false, I did not find one that does. < > Nice Republican tactics. "What my opponent proposes will force us to raise taxes". Really nice. However even if they did use the Imperial System, how in the world would it cost "BILIIONS AND BILLIONS of $$$" as you said with such emotion? < > I thought the previous was nice Republican tactics, but whoa! "What my opponent is proposing is AGAINST America!" Well, not until you find evidence that proves all those industries use the Imperial system. I even tried to do the job for you but there is no such evidence. Plus, I wouldn't be "killing Americans" if people like you didn't get the beautiful idea of going into Iraq. < > Except for you, who trusts this system. I'll tell you something, scientists don't. < > When I heard this I thought you'd bring a valid argument against the metric system but not really. You didn't even "debunk" my arguments. Did you answer to the waste of time teachers spend teaching kids this system when they could be teaching them something else. Also, you underrate simplicity. Simplicity means hours of less work for many Americans. In you last argument I'd like you to answer these questions DIRECTLY. 1) I gave you a reason as to why the metric system is better. Simplicity and logic (in the sense that it is logical that a centimeter is one hundredth of a meter). 2)You said in your previous argument: <<$10000000000.00 is a vast amount of money, and only a conservative estimate of the conversion. It's undeinably not worth it.>> 1st of all, where do you get that number? 2nd of all, it's not worth it? It's not worth it to save time (months) wasted in schools? 3rd of all, I noticed the number you put up there in dollars. Funny, I don't remember the last time someone asked "hey dude, what's a cent? And how many cents are in a dollar?". 4th of all how do you people spell a word like undeniably incorrectly even with a spell check on this thing?
The United States should adopt the metric system.

Ok so, so far your argument is "why should we conform?" Please correct me if I'm wrong. First of all, I don't think it's a problem for America to conform since all the other countries on the face of this world has the BETTER system. No matter how proud of it we are. "Learning the vocabulary for the Imperial system is no more difficult than learning the names of classmates or counting in French." The problem is not just the names as much as it is the numbers. I still don't remember how many feet are in a mile and I've been here 2 years in a half. I just know it's around 1000 and something. However American students learn the metric system in a week in science class. What's the point of keeping that system if we don't use it? As a student, I don't remember the last time I needed the Imperial system, I don't use it in math nor science. "Let's make life easier by metricizing time so that a minute is 100 seconds, etc." Metricize time? The metric system is all about DISTANCE, this debate is about the metric system. "Your job is to give some GOOD reasons to support why the US should switch over when we have been happily using the Imperial system for years on end." My father's a teacher in a public school, my mom is a college professor, neither them nor their friends who are also teachers would agree with you that "we have been happily using the Imperial system". And my colleagues in school say "Why do we need that sh*t if we don't use it anymore since elementary school?". And that's a great point, you spend years trying to get those kids to memorize how many feet are in a mile, inches in a foot, etc. and some of them still don't remember. But in a week we all know the metric system. It's a waste of teaching time, is that not a good reason? Learning about the metric system and only the metric system would improve the math and science skills of kids all across America. So why should we conform? Because it is the BEST system. England conformed without a problem, why don't we?
The United States should adopt the metric system.

First of all, thank you John Quincy Adams for giving me the idea to start this debate. So here are some of my reasons as to why America should adopt the metric system. 1) America is one of the only countries to use this system, and still in school, all American kids are taught the metric system anyways. Therefore, there is no point in knowing about any other system. 2) Immigrants like me may come to America and have great math skills. However, the current system is irregular. The metric system makes sense, since it is based on 10 and has various common derivations of latin (e.g. centimeter, milimeter...).
Determinism is true while Free Will is a fallacy

My opponent forfeited the last round, which is very unfortunate. I will summarize quickly how I proved my opponent's contention to be false.My opponent claimed that Determinism is true and free will is a fallacy. His definition of determinism in the opening round states: "Every event that occurs not only has a preceding event [...] but also a proceeding event".Because my opponent claimed that every event has a preceding event, I can prove that this claim is false by showing one example that violates this claim. I was able to prove this in my opening argument by proving that there must exist at least one uncaused event which was not preceded by another event; thus falsifying his claim that determinism is true.One can also prove that free will is not a fallacy by showing an instance where free will existed. I was able to demonstrate that the first uncaused cause must have had some form of free will (see second round) which would falsify the claim that free will is a fallacy.I ask the reader to consider the evidence and consider that determinism, as my opponent has defined it, cannot be true.Thank you.
Determinism is true while Free Will is a fallacy

I am of the opinion that every event that occurs not only has a preceding event that can be quantitative but also a proceeding event has the same ability and as such can be predicted if enough data were to be accumulated. The idea that nature is "random" is foolish at its core concept. I have absolute certainty that when rain falls from the sky it will eventually evaporate from the ground and fall from the sky once again. I know for a fact that if I put water into an environment that is 32 degrees C or below it will crystallize and freeze. In both events I know them as Dogmas since it's inevitable that they will happen, just to what accuracy I can predict it's data is up to my instruments ability to gather data and how much data I need to gather. Say we had a computer that had the ability to track every atom in the Universe and instruments with the capability to track where those atoms were moving according to their initial force vectors and all forces that affected said atoms thereafter; I say that it's hard to logically disprove the accuracy of my data in terms of where every star in the Milky way galaxy is located in reference to its origin. Now say I tracked those atom clusters that affected the molten mass of atoms that would become Earth and was able to process all the information that affect said terrestrial planet I would be able to predict every event that was to occur since I not only had all the data but also the capability it comprehend it. Free will requires the concept that any event you make is independent of outside influence and the decisions you make are only because you desire to make them and not because you have to. But essentially we are a mass of atoms that at our root desire to survive (physically or symbolically). Therefore our decisions are predetermined by instinctual or "natural" preceding events that could only happen the way they did because of the short and long term events or series of events that have transpired since the beginning of space-time.
Socks should be like gloves not mittens

Sicks do not need to be like gloves, because toes do not require much dexterity. If you were a monkey, and needed to pick up a newspaper with your toes, glove socks could be useful, but humans don't need to use their toes for anything. Hands are well suited for the job. Do you really need to wiggle your toes? The nylon used in socks is incredibly flexible, your shoe is probably just too tight. I'm sure glove socks exist somewhere, as a cheap novelty, but they have no practical use whatsoever. They're another impractical trinket with no real purpose.
Socks should be like gloves not mittens

I like the idea of socks, keeping your feet warm and preventing foot fungus but why must they restrain the free movement of my toes. Sometimes I feel like my toes are being imprisoned by mitten-like socks I mean they receive no air and completely restrict my wiggly toes from doing what they do, WIGGLING! I feel the same way about mittens I mean all tight you cant do anything with mittens on, but gloves, I mean gloves are by far the superior form of hand wear as they provide flexibility and warmth, all while giving you the capability to perform tasks, unlike those dreaded mittens. Thank You for your support in this campaign!
Guns Should Be Well-Regulated and There Should Be Gun Control

To CON I say sorry that I forfeited the round. I use mobile so I'm unaware that I forfeit debates. I will be using this for my opening statements. Sorry for the inconvenience. Anyway, simply stating the 2nd amendment is a where your claim collapses on itself. The 2nd amendment states the following: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Besides the fact that it was intended for a militia use is something we've already gone far beyond. If you look at the first part of the 2nd amendment, then you will see "well regulated". Despite the fact that your argument simply states just "2nd amendment", I won't let my arguments be simply just stating the actual amendment. I imagine you're aware of mass shootings that have happened in the past; Sandy Hook, Columbine, Kent State, the like. What do these have in common? They were all committed by people who obviously weren't mentally competent enough to own a gun. If you make guns well regulated, people who aren't capable to have guns won't be able to own them. This will decrease mass shootings, homicides, and other gun-related crimes. In conclusion, if guns are well-regulated, people who are mentally incapable of having guns will have a harder time of getting a hold of them. I personally think there should be stricter policies on ownership of guns so less crimes will be committed and more action can be taken if such events happen in the future. Thank you.
The US Drug war should be ended

This debate is for all drugs, also you broke a rule, the acceptance rule. My case first: C1: cost of the drug war After 40 years 1 trillion dollars have been spent on the drug war. (1) In 2010 the goverment spent 550$ per second. (2) 2011 it is over 1000$ every second. (3) 48.7 billion dollars spent in 2008. (4) My point: the drug war is way to expensive. C2: the drug war kills people Since 2006 there have been 13,600 deaths related to the drug cartelles. (5) btw the cartelles are drug war made. (6) yep the drug war made violence. (6) 318 federal police have lost their lives in the drug war. (7) 47,000 killed total. (7) (8) The point: to many people die in this war. C3: the drug war is not working The global drug war has failed says the global Commision on drug policy. (9) the prohibition of alcohol decreased users. (10) the drug war is like this, good initial effects, then the amount if users raise. (10) in 2007 35% of college students used stimulants not prescribed to them. (11) After 40 years of the drug war drug violence has increased. (12) A drug Czar says it has failed. (12) Also a DOJ report shows the drug war has failed. (13) (14) C4; decriminization works Since the decriminaluzation in portugaul users in all categorys has decreased. (15) on a smaller scale: States/provinces with less strict drug laws actually have lower drug rates. (16) So laws=\= end drug use, and decriminaluzation works. C5; right to drugs I will never use this right, but there is a right to using drugs. It took an ammendment to have the alcohol prohibition, there is no such law with drugs. (17) The 10th ammendment leaves all unenemerated powers to the states, this power should be left to the state, but it is not therefore the federal drug war= unconstitutional. (18) I will refute next round, vote pro http://www.foxnews.com... (1) http://www.drugsense.org... (2) http://actionamerica.org... (3) http://drugsense.org... (4) http://www.stanford.edu... (5) http://stopthedrugwar.com... (6) http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (7) http://www.eluniversal.com.mx... (8) http://m.guardian.co.uk... (9) http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (10) http://www.jaacap.com...(09)62081-5/abstract (11) http://www.cbsnews.com... (12) http://stealth-products.com... (13) http://m.digg.com... (14) http://www.time.com... (15) http://norml.org... (16) http://www.law.cornell.edu... (17) http://tenthamendmentcenter.com... (18)
The US Drug war should be ended

I'd like to start out by saying thank you for allowing me to debate this topic with you. It's my first one on here, so I'm going to start off with a bang. You say legalize drugs, but you don't give any specifics. First of all, legalize ALL drugs, or just specific ones? There are so many drugs out there, some with minor effects such as marijuana, some with major effects like PCP. Some are extremely addictive such as cocaine and heroine, some are based on how much you WANT to take, such as shrooms. As far as marijuana, yes, I would say legalize it. HOWEVER, there would need to be strict regulations implemented on the sale and use of it. For one, it would have to be regulated such as alcohol. There should be an age requirement, you should not be allowed to drive or operate vehicles under the influence, and it should be just as illegal to buy for or supply to minors as alcohol. Also, there should be a tax on it, just like there is for cigarettes and tobacco products. That money should go towards the national deficit. NOW, for the rest of them; As you stated in your reply to me, you state that people should be able to melt their bodies as they want. You can't just look at the individual perspective of this. Once someone gets hooked on drugs, they'll do anything to get a fix. Families will be destroyed, crime will go up, not to mention the rest of the people who would have to deal with the results of someone who's high. Have you ever seen in real life or a video of someone on PCP? They're out of their mind, and it takes a lot of force to restrain them. Would you want to be at Wal-Mart when someone who's on a trip starts tearing down the aisle, putting you or your family in danger? You can't just look at the person on the drug, you have to look at how it will affect everyone they interact with, and everyone who cares about them. There's a reason drugs aren't legal. The repercussions would be catastrophic. Crime would skyrocket, families would be destroyed, and the country would rapidly deteriorate at such a rapid pace that there would be no way to stop it.
The Natural Law Party should be the ruling party in America.

My opponent is willing to go "pro" for any of the main issues listed on their website. I have chosen the Main Issue of Strengthening Democracy for this debate. More Specifically: Election Reform and the Natural Law Party proposal of Abolishing the Electoral College. The party proposes that people should be elected through direct popular vote. So I propose to my opponent a debate on the Abolishment of the Electoral College which is directly under their guidelines for a solution to Election Reform. If my opponent has any problem with this, my opponent can address this in the comment sections so Round 2 may begin the debate. Do Note: I propose that the debate be entirely on this topic as to not have a scattered debate due to the 8,000 character limit on this website.
The Natural Law Party should be the ruling party in America.

First of all, I want to commend Debate.org for introducing me to the Natural Law Party by offering it as an option for party affiliation. Otherwise, I would never have known that there is a political party that is comprised of intelligent people with a platform that makes absolute perfect sense. It is most unfortunate that they have closed their national headquarters due to their failure in the '92, '96, and 2000 elections. However, their website is still active and their platform can be found here: http://www.natural-law.org... After reading through them, I am willing to debate "pro" for any of their main Issues, which are listed in the given link.
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

I concede. Since I did not understand your criterion, I feel that all of my refutations or summaries will be flawed as I still do not understand this (and we didn't have any rounds dedicated to cross-examination, a fatal flaw in the structure I guess).I believe that my case wouldn't have won this round for me anyways, since the affirmative isn't necessarily a changed status quo, just a demarkation of what we ought to do. I appreciate your time, and I'm sorry for wasting it. As for your sources, I would just like to help you on, as they come from Champion Briefs -- this brief institute has very serious ethical violations in a lot of their publications. Please do not use these in a real life debate round -- (see: the controvery of their Phelps evidence for the December 2015 Public Forum topic; they directly misrepresent what his claim was by means of omitting talking about it).
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

This is a LD Debate challenge! We will debate LD Style and it is value based. Rules:LD RULES;not same format Order Challenge Acceptance Aff post case Neg post case Rebuttals on Neg' case and new points Rebuttals on Aff's case and new points Aff defense Neg defense Final Focus for Aff(NO NEW POINTS) Final Focus for Neg(NO NEW POINTS) BOP is shared Bias should not imply for voters. Vote on the content only. No forfeits
Resolved: Winnie the Pooh is one of the most bada** mother f*ckers ever

Oh, my bad I didn't notice the one in the resolution. Cool story, . http://www.debate.org... Sally, the ragdoll creation of Finklestein from Nightmare before christmas, can do the same thing and control her severed body parts, and she's not really a BAMF character herself. Self operations are impressive in real life, but its not really BAMF material, since we have several characters and scenarios like Saw which are listed in . http://en.wikipedia.org.... Most of the fictional ones are BAMF like the Predator, Rambo, Black Jack, and Faust VII. Others aren't BAMFs like those in the SAW trilogy. Speaking of BAMFs Alucard from Hellsing can be riddled with bullets to the point where there's almost nothing left, have his head sliced off and come back laughing like a maniac. Of course lets not forget Father Anderson the Bayonet priest also from Hellsing. This guy can survive a silver 13 mm explosive tip round after being shot in the head, and still cleave the head off of Alucard (its an impressive feat if you're familiar with the series). Self healing like regeneration used to be a BAMF trait until Twilight showed up and ruined the trait with sparkling vampires who are weaker and have extremely crappy character development than previous any previously known character with that trait. So I rest my case.