BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I make the claim that a God exists

Whoever accepts this debate will be making the positive claim and will have 100% burden of proof. Here are my rules: No claiming "everything must have a cause". Causality didn't exist until after the Bing Bang, which means the Big Bang could have happened without a cause. No claiming the Universe came from nothing. The Universe came from a singularity, which is something. According to Professor Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist, the singularity was a millionth of a billionth of a centimeter wide. No word games. No playing with semantics. No using wikipedia. It's a not a reliable source. No using Creationist websites. They are proved to be complete nonsense. No vague definition of words. If you use a word that can have several meanings, make it clear what you actually mean. No adding new arguments as you go along. State your arguments in the first round and be prepared to defend them later. Do not try to flood the last round with new arguments that I don't get a chance to address. That's dishonest and cheating. No using information without defining the way you interpret it. There should be no accusations about how somebody interpreted something wrong. No cheaters, liars, cut and pasters, semantic players, definition distorters and people who don't understand what burden of proof means. No profiles that claim they are 100 years old. I don't debate liars. Nobody under 18. I don't debate people who know everything. God is defined as the creator of everything and the entity that knows and controls everything. It is responsible for everything that exists and happens. Since my opponent will have the BoP, they may start the argument in the first round and may also have the last word in the last round. Due to my past experience with vote bombs, and because DDO does not provide a way to block certain users from voting, I will kindly ask the following users not to vote on this debate: 1Devilsadvocate, 1Historygenius, adontimasu, Albert, AlwaysMoreThanYou, Anaxa, Apeiron, badbob, BennyW, BigSky, BillyTheKids, CharlieWBC, Chicken, ConservativePolitico, Consummator, DakotaKrafick, DoubtingDave, Dylip, Illegalcombatant, imabench, ishallannoyyo, IwinYoulose333, joseph.bazemore, just4trollz, KeytarHero, kingsjester, Korashk, KRFournier, lannan13, likespeace, lit.wakefield, Logic_on_rails, makhdoom5, MrVan, Nur-Ab-Sal, philochristos, po.osullivan, popculturepooka, ProfessorCNut, Ragnar, robertqiu, rross, samurai, SANTORUM2012, sbaik610, Smithereens, thett3, Typhlochactas, wiploc, x2MuzioPlayer, YYW, Zaradi, zezima
TEA Party Ignorance, Stupidity and Extremism Cost GOP the 2012 Presidential Election

My opponent apparently intends this round to be a preface as to what we're going to argue in depth later. My arguments can't exactly be planned until I see my opponent's full ones, since my job is largely to refute his case. But I'll likely respond to his examples with either A. The position isn't extremist (I won't use this argument often to avoid a definition debate), or B. It didn't affect the election. I'll also make a general critique stating that due to the nature of today's political parties, extremism has an inherently minimal effect, anyway. I await Pro's arguments.
TEA Party Ignorance, Stupidity and Extremism Cost GOP the 2012 Presidential Election

"The economy, stupid." With that simple expression, James Carville was able to focus the 1992 Clinton campaign in a time of much less severe or protracted recession than faced in 2007-2012. Unfortunately for conservatives there was no such focusing on their part for the presidential campaign of 2012. ------------ Definitions Extremism or extremist position Extremism is NOT assumed to be a bad thing. Extremism will be defined simply as positions that are a certain distance from the norm. (We may want to discuss offline how far--the number of standard deviations, for example.) For example, a position on abortion from either absolute would be considered "extreme," under this definition simply because *most* voters fall somewhere in between.[1] Other positions that I hope to show are both extreme and hurt conservatives in the 2012 presidential election are: foreign policy, immigration, gay rights, gun rights, healthcare and global warming. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list now, and I may have evidence for other positions in R3. -------------------- As I said in R1, my argument will be about extremist "conservatives,"* though self-proclaimed TEA Party members are a good stand in. What I hope to show is that beginning at least as early as the 2008 election campaign, conservatives made stupid mistakes rooted in extremist thinking, that ruined their credibility, and that they continued to make these mistakes far into the 2012 election. Just for fun, I hope to show that many still haven't learned from those mistakes. My argument will have two main parts: 1. Crying wolf I'll show that extremist conservatives took the lead in severely harming conservative credibility by excess demonizing of Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats and "liberals." Again this damage to conservative credibility began back in 2008. In the case of healthcare, crying wolf hurt conservative credibility even on an issue where their position was in the mainstream. 2. Taking unnecessarily extreme positions When given the chance to change the country in their direction, conservatives showed a rare ability to alienate the rest of the populace with their inability to compromise. When placing stricter limits on abortions might be achievable, conservatives instead pinned "no pregnancy termination for any reason" on the Republican Platform and the Romney campaign. A position even Paul Ryan had to back away from, although he agrees with it. (Republicans can be questioned fairly on whether some of their major presidential candidates are anti-contraception for Pete's sake.) These are my main arguments. I look forward to my opponent"s argument.
TEA Party Ignorance, Stupidity and Extremism Cost GOP the 2012 Presidential Election

No semantics. Abuse forfeits. Other standard debating rules. CLARIFICATIONS: "TEA Party" in the Resolution is intended as a general stand in for "conservative" extremists who have moved the party far to the right and interfered with its ability to win elections and to "govern from the center. " It is NOT intended to refer to the literal, formal organization of the same name (if there is one), or to the original, putative raison d'etre and literal acronym. "Cost the GOP the Presidency" is intended to mean that actions by those on the far right had a significant negative impact; enough so that without those actions (includes verbal actions, i. e. , statements) Mitt Romney could have won (with all his faults and wishy washiness. ) It does NOT intend to close off the possibility that Romney had other even more significant faults or mistakes. Though this is a serious topic, I hope we can have some FUN with stupidity and ignorance--and that most of it is other folks', not mine. LOL
Should pie be banned in the U.S

"Pie is just horrible"Have you had a bad experience with a pie or something? [cue first YouTube video] http://www.youtube.com..."there is no point for it so it needs to be gone"The point has been proven, to feed people. No counter proposal of anything else to eat has been offered."it is stupid."While it is more intellegent than some people I've met, I will concede this point, as it remains utterly lacking in brain cells.In conclusion [cue second YouTube video]. http://www.youtube.com...
Should pie be banned in the U.S

Pro has ignored my case from last round, so extend... As for this round, pro's two premises, do not equate to the conclusion."they should just remove it so it will be gone from American Society!"America is a melting pot nation of many cultures, who would of course not willingly give up their heritage."pie does not mean anything to a lot of people"If meant nothing, there would be no reason to ban it."[pie] isn't as popular as cake"Yet for reasons explored last round (flour), a ban on pies would be even more detrimental to cake availability than pie itself. It takes a relatively small amount of flour to make a pie, but a large amount to make a cake.Also (incoming fallacy) the same line of reasoning, was used by Hitler. One group at a time they removed the less popular ones, trying to leave only the most popular one. It is like that quote from death camp survivor Martin Niemöller "First they came for the [Pie], and I did not speak out— Because I [did] not [like pie]. Then they came for the [Pizza], and I did not speak out—Because I [did] not [like pizza-pie either]. Then they came for the [Black Forest cake], and I did not speak out—Because I [did] not [like the pie-like fruit filling between layers]. Then they came for [my chocolate birthday cake with sprinkles]—and there was no one left to speak for me." How long until the the only tolerated foodstuff is flourless Angel Food cake?
Should pie be banned in the U.S

In short, trying to ban pies, would be like trying to ban food entirely. Pie should not be banned. First of all, regulation to enforce said ban would be nearly impossible; and to prevent recidivism you'd need to punish pie-cooks on level with meth-cooks. Also you'd need to remove the availability of required ingredients, which as pie is chiefly defined by the shell, requires a ban on flour. Given the number of flour substitutes (almond meal for starters), ingratiates that could be used as filling would have to be sought out and destroyed as well."Pie is unhealthy"This has not been proven. The human body requires fuel, which is a role pie is suitable to fill."it is just annoying"This has not been proven. Even if children talk about it, [see food argument above]."lower obesity rate"I concede this point. Starving everyone to death, would lower the prevalence of obesity.
This Debate is Stupid

I have to admit that he kept me on my toes. I have 3 midterm exams, 2 papers, and a barking dog -- oops, make that two barking dogs (darn it!) -- to attend to, but I took time out of my day for this debate. Because you see, folks, it was not stupid. There is no such thing as a stupid debate, or a stupid question, or a stupid thought. That's personification. There are only stupid people starting stupid debates, asking stupid questions, or formulating stupid thoughts. And pro is still a genius.
This Debate is Stupid

See, the genius continues! He forfeited, just as he said he would, to try to trick us all into thinking that he wasn't taking this debate seriously so that I would forfeit, stop caring, and he could come in at the last minute and write a beautiful argument about neurophysiology (is that even a thing?) or something like that and win over the voters with his wit and intellect. NOTICE! He did not post "no arguments in the last round" or anything of the sort. That's the plan. I'm onto you, Pro!
This Debate is Stupid

This debate is not stupid. In fact, it's downright genius. My opponent is a genius. He devised the debate so that it would appear tempting -- that is, it's not on a specific subject, and it bears semblance to an easy-to-win troll debate -- but in fact it's extremely difficult and requires critical thinking and strategy. Not to mention, with very short rounds, it keeps both debaters on their toes. I have to go to the bathroom, but I'm not going to at this point! Very good idea, good sir.
This Debate is Stupid

This debate is stupid. It is so stupid that I will forfeit the rounds, leaving the other debater talking to himself for the next 4 rounds. Also, he only has 5 minutes (and a 500 character limit) to prepare (and type up) for each round, not giving him enough time (and words to use) and giving him not a lot of experience. Finally, the voting period is only 3 days, giving everybody not enough time, and the consensus is not accurately reached.
High School Should Start Later in the Morning

Now I am confused. If you are talking about school starting an hour later, then this debate was kind of pointless because most do. But if you are talking about schools starting at 9 or 10, then that is a different story. Most high school days are about 7 hours long. For a high school starting at 9, school will go until 4 in the afternoon, and for 10, 5 in the afternoon. This is also a problem because since schools will start later, students will get the idea that they can also stay up later and procrastinate more than they normally do. Students might stay out until after midnight because school starts later. This could cause and increase in crime as well. Also, it is more dangerous for the students because of all of the possibilities of them being out at night. I look forward to seeing the results. You did a great job and thank you for debating :)
High School Should Start Later in the Morning

Starting school later would not cause students to lose hours in school. Middle school often starts later than high school and middle school students spend the same amount of time in school as high school students. If school starts later, this will make it easier for students to get the necessary amount of sleep they need due to teens often not getting sleepy until around or after 11 PM. For high schools that start around 7 AM, the latest a teen can really wake up to have enough time to get ready is about 5:30-6:20 AM. Since teens often don't get tired until around or after 11 PM, it is difficult for them to get the necessary amount of sleep under these circumstances. It is true that students will go to school for the same amount of time if high schools started later, but it is not necessarily true that they will get the same amount of sleep due to many teens getting sleepy around or after 11 PM.
High School Should Start Later in the Morning

See, there is a flaw in your argument. There are certain laws requiring a certain amount of days students have to go to school. By starting school later, you are losing hours spent in schools, which means that by the end of the average school year, there is not enough time students have spent in schools. There is also a certain amount of days off that students legally have the right too. If all of these days are filled up, (with weekends off), when are students going to be able to make up for the days school is missed? Year round schools are not a solution, because they still require the same amount of days off of school, just with different schedules than most normal schools. If you are planning on bringing up the point that school could go later in the afternoon, it will not change a thing. Students would still be going to school for the same amount of time and getting the same amount of sleep. Thank you for debating and I am eager to see the results :)
High School Should Start Later in the Morning

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm talking about high schools that start earlier than 8 AM. I thought most high schools started around 7 AM. Anyways, the problem is puberty often causes teens to not get sleepy until around or even after 11 PM. So it is not necessarily their fault. Teens often make it worse by staying up later and procrastinating though. http://www.mayoclinic.org... So since it is difficult for many teens to go to sleep before 11 PM, it is more difficult to get the necessary 8 hours of sleep since they have to get up even earlier than 7 AM to get ready for school.
High School Should Start Later in the Morning

Actually, I will have to disprove your thesis by stating that the average teenager (High School Student) only needs 8.5 - 9.5 hours of sleep. http://sleepfoundation.org... Say school starts at 8 in the morning (like most high schools do). Now lets say that school ends at 3. Students have 17 hours not spent during school on the weekdays. There is more than enough time for a high school student to get the necessary sleep they need. The only problem is, are they willing to go to bed at the right time to ensure this. Most teenagers do not. And, that is their own fault that they do not perform to their best academic ability. Not the schools. So, why should the school have to change the starting time?
white tiger breeding should be illegal

white tigers are beautiful majestic creatures. you go to a zoo maybe just to see one. but there's something the zoos seem to forget to tell you. white tigers could not exist in the wild. they are inbred in captivity. white tigers are white because of genetic mutation. made white by breeders. think. where do tigers live? green places or grassy places. does a white coat help them camouflage? there is no need for a breed that lives in those places to have a white coat. being white in the wild is a define disadvantage. the tiger cant depend on the needed attack on their prey. no legitamite conservation effort has made any plans to release white tigers in the wild. white tigers that are born in captivity stay in captivity. inbreeding causes other defects in these tigers. defects like bulging eyes and teeth spread too wide apart. white tigers are bred for beauty to meet th demands of the public. who wants to pay money to go see a defect? white tigers have to live with the pain of these defects. or sometimes killed for them. white tigers cant apologize for the people who bred them. other defects include immune deficiency, scoliosis, cleft palates, mental impairments, and early death. every white tiger has crossed eyes weather they show it or not. the white gene causes the optic nerve to be wired on the wrong side of the brain. 1 in 10,000 white tiger cubs will be white. none have ever been recorded to be an adult. because of the huge disadvantage if their white coat. normal tiger behaviors would prevent a white tiger from ever being born. 8 out of 10 cubs will die from the inbreeding needed to make the white show. they will die because we haven't yet put a stop to breeding white tigers. when two captive tigers meet both with the gene that make the coat white, 1 in 4 of their cubs will be white. what do we do with the other three? the breeders either kill or trade them. the next time you see a white tiger remember this: remember the little tiger cub who was killed because he wasn't white. remember the tiger who was born with a defect. stop breeding the white tigers. its cruelty not conservation. (info taken from animal media)
white tiger breeding should be illegal

I believe I've won the debate here based on the arguments. However, I respect my opponent's desire to help the tigers, and think we can both agree that responsible conservation should definitely be the goal, and that inbreeding, if done at all, must be done in a way that minimizes the chance of significant health defects. While inbreeding is not truly NECESSARY in order to produce white tigers, it's generally the way it's done, and it's generally done irresponsibly. Part of the reason making it illegal would be bad would be because it would encourage inbreeding to continue the black market for white tigers...India said no to Siegfried and Roy's attempts to outbreed BECAUSE they'd made breeding White Tigers illegal. But certainly: something should be done about the subject. And we should always endeavor to stop animal cruelty. Thanks.
white tiger breeding should be illegal

my opponent has very strong arguments. I see her point and respect everything she said. my opinion will not be changed because I believe all animal cruelty should be outlawed. the white tigers deserve better and I hope to spread the word about it. the bottom line : zoos have concealed the truth, and we need to stand up to it. I agree we should stop inbreeding and I wish their was a better way to breed white tigers. but sadly there isn't. I hope I have made a small dent in the fight to stop inbreeding, and the way it affects white tigers. I strongly encourage viewers to boycott facilities that breed white tigers. I hope this argument drew your attention because you love animals. and I hope because you love animals you will join me and many others in the fight against cruel inbreeding on white tigers and other animals too. I put the argument into strong words: "white tiger inbreeding should be illegal", sorry if there was confusion in the title. the one thing I want you to remember from this is white tiger inbreeding is cruelty not conservation.
bible is not perfectly the word of God

so you think women should marry their rapists? or, you think times can change what is truth? or you think a woman shaving her head is necessary response to the culture of those times? or you tihnk when a rapist doesn't treat the woman right, she's suddenly socially acceptable such that she can now not have to marry the guy? it seems more like the reason they had to marry is because she was now unclean and needed to marry the rapist.
United States of America vs Russia in a war.

If the situations you have stated were to come true, I doubt Russia would get involved with a war with the US, and even if they did, anybody else wouldn't get very far. China and the USA's economy's at the moment are intertwined, a war would destroy both, But if it happened, I believe the war would move close to Japan, or north Korea. An invasion of North Korea would be the easier one, None of the countries stated would be able to invade US Soil, except maybe Alaska. Also you forgot a few countries that would ally the US (France, Germany, South Korea ) And with South Korea, an invasion of North Korea would be the most likely bet. The USA's Naval power dominates the pacific, and invasion on the Country itself (Excluding Alaska, or Hawaii) is near impossible. The US might get somewhere. Good Luck in Round 2
United States of America vs Russia in a war.

I think that before anybody will have a chance to 'win' as such, the casualties will be devastating and there will be a truce. The reason the Cold War ended was because of the casualties that were bound the entail upon both countries. If there was to be a war between Russia and the United states they would both attack each others allies or dominate them before attacking each-other. However, whether America would win is a different question. Sure you know they have the strongest military and allies but what do Russia have that we don't know about...
United States of America vs Russia in a war.

I will be taking the side of the United States. The United States has at the moment, the most powerful military, not to mention the Largest Naval fleet. I believe that in a conventional war (Yes I know this will likely never happen) the USA Would win, but with severe casualties. No, this would not be a nuclear war. If you care to debate, post your argument for round 1, and good luck! Originally posted by Dark_Soul. I may use his counterclaims if needed.
Intelligent design is a rational explanation for the origin of species

Intelligent design (ID) is the belief that life on earth arose from an intelligent source as opposed to natural causes (abiogenesis). As many confuse ID with Young Earth Creationism (YEC), I will explicitly state that ID includes but is not limited to YEC. The BoP for Pro (myself) is to show that there are rational reasons to believe that life on earth was designed by an intelligent source using principles or methods that may be applied outside the scope of the origins of life. The BoP for Con is to show that arguments in favor of ID are irrational and that abiogenesis is the most plausible explanation to the origins of life on earth. For this debate, we shall define rational as "based on or in accordance with reason or logic."