BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hinduism is more moral than Buddhism

Hello, nice to meet you. It will be an honor debating with you.I will start with my first and largest point. That point is that Buddhists are very respectful of other religions, and do not beleive that they are set CORRECT or INCORRECT. Many of us could be right and many of us wrong, so there is no point in arguing about who is and who isn't, when there is no possible way of knowing.. Buddhists do not beleive in fighting over whose religion is better, because they know (as I have stated) that there is no perfect way of knowing for sure. This makes buddhism not only a religion, but a way of life. Also, I need to say, Hinduism is based upon the Caste System. The Caste System isn't economical or moral at all because it doesn't really make the people want to do much to get better. It is saying that if you simply do your job, (after many years and lives) you will be put into heaven. I can't help but think that it is just a way to get people to do their jobs. It does create a stable economy, but definitally not a growthful one. The economy would be working, as it has for many years, but also has shown none or very little positive change. In the religion of Buddhism, you constantly work to better yourself (following the eighthfold-path) so that stimulates a growthful nation.You are never limited to what you are supposed to do. You are constantly working for what you can be, and not what you are. Many buddhists monks spend their entire lives simply learning. They are constantly growing their knowlage, and with it, (as they believe), their souls and being. Also, you never NEED to be anything lower than god. It is not a sin to think so. You can work to be equal with him, as a brother and a friend. If you do what is right, than you will find infinite peace.PROS AND CONS OF BUDDHISM: Pros: It's logical and has evidence and proof to support most of its claims and doesn't require faith of its people - also the buddha himself said 'do not believe anything you hear even if i have said it unless it agrees with your own logic and beliefs' also its extremely peaceful and encourages compassion and learning, there is no religious buddhist war ever recorded in history Cons: easily misinterpreted many people think buddhists think life must be suffering because of the first noble truth that is often stated as 'life is suffering' when actually it is 'life is frought with suffering' meaning that it happens also people think buddhists worship buddha as a god or that possibly we become god's when we die which is incorrect. The buddha was just a man, if we bow to a statue of the buddha it is out of respect also its a very pacifistic religion which while good in some ways (no history of war etc) it made it extremely easy for china to invade tibet - they didn't fight back they just ran. And buddhism doesn't thrive in communist china. Occasionaly buddhism becomes a pushover because it is nonviolent and other religions tend to not follow this. (NOTE: I did not write the pros and cons above., but I agree with it. All credit goes to Buddhist Mango. Here's the link: https://answers.yahoo.com...Thank you.
Flag Desecration is exercising one's freedom of speech

Flag desecration, despite being an act of hate towards one's country, should be allowed. It is an infringement on one's freedom of speech to make flag desecration illegal. Why should the government be allowed to decide what we should not say? You cannot give the government power over you, for they will abuse that power eventually. All governments become corrupt. It is only a matter of time. (I do not condone flag desecration)
Take the knee

What Civil Rights, You didn't name one. You did't rebuttal any of my points but just called it irrevelent. You don;t have any statisitcs to back up your point's and anyone can do this:Who relies on welfare:Blackswho enslaved THEMSELVES:BlacksWho aren't graduating high school:BlacksWho shoot their race more:BlacksI can go on and on but I won't becuase this is the stupidest argumnet i have EVER seen on DDO apart from bill fu c king sands. You claim that America is a joke yet you don"t explain whyBAD DEBATE
Take the knee

If Black people weren't oppressed then why would they have to fight for Civil Right? Yep, That kind of destroys what you're spewing. Dude, Some veterans like/dislike Kaepernick just like some people like/dislike you & just like some people like/dislike me. All of your ramblings about the flag, Veterans & freedom is irrelevant. The protest is about (Police Brutality). Putting democracy & freedom in the same sentence as America is a joke. You say that "blacks commit more crime. " Let's look at reality for a moment. 1. The Most Serial Killers: White 2. The Most Mass Murderers: White 3. Child Pedophiles: White 4. Female Teachers Sexually Assaulting Students: White 5. School Shooters: White 6. Hate Crimes: White 7. Bar/Nightclub Shooters: White 8. Work-Related Shootings: White 9. Male Sexual Harassment Cases: White 10. Crooked Cops/Politicians: White 11. Perverted Roman Catholic Priests: White 12. Most Criminal Ponzi Schemes: White 13. Bank Robberies: White 14. Etc. You should just admit that America is a joke and a hypocrisy because it doesn't practices what it preaches.
Take the knee

I can't take you serious because you provided NO EVIDENCE NOR FACTS saying that backs aren't oppressed. You laugh but the joke is on YOU now. Just because some Veterans were brainwashed in the MSM doesn't mean that they are veterans who hate CRAPERNICK like Alejandro Villanueva Martinez. The talent is an only American thing. The flag is not just a piece of cloth. The flag represents this country and it is great. The flag represent's veterans and a shining light of democracy and freedom. How is it a conflict of interests? Oh, Well guess what buddy, WHITES are shot more despite blacks committing more violent crime and half of all murders. According to the Washington Post whites were shot 459 times while blacks only 223. And oh yeah cops see black people commit more crime than whites and whites STILL get shot more.
Take the knee

I really can't take you serious especially when you said that Black people aren't oppressed in America today. I thought you were going to bring some type of respectable argument to the table because we went over this before. You just answered your own question because (taking a knee for police brutality) is the response for protesting the government. I'll refresh your memory yet again. "Veterans told Kaepernick that it was fine to take a knee. " Talent is what allows the person to make millions. The flag is just a piece of cloth that isn't even made in America. Isn't that a conflict of interest? John Jay College? Really? So how many people from J. J. C. Has gotten shot? . . . If J. J. C. Is right then why aren't whites getting shot? Since whites clearly commit the most crime, Why aren't whites getting shot? Dude, You're living in a delusion.
Take the knee

Why would anyone in the NFL ever Take the knee on the national anthem. Like disrespecting the flag as citizen, Fine but as a NFL player making millions of dollars of a only American thing. WHY? Blacks are not oppressed in America today. Protest the Government is also ok, But the flag the very thing that is making you millions. That's greed. There are probably a million other ways of getting your point across then kneeling for the flag. Oh but what about Cops shooting blacks. Well according to John Jay college you are more likely to get shot as a white man in a similar situation than if you are a black man. This illusion only creates more crime like the Ferguson Effect and disrespect. Are how about Alejandro Villanueva Mart"nez. US Army Core veteran. STOOD for the flag like a hero he was. He loved this country instead of being forced in the locker room by the steelers.
God Exists

What you are saying is that the "designer" of Earth had to be an actual being. The designer of Earth could have also been the big bang, which has actual proof behind it. Also, you said virtually impossible for the events to occur without a mindset behind them, but life is just full of coincidences. Yes, the probability of us being on Earth right now was slim, but it definitely is not impossible. Certain situations just click with others to form Earth as we know it today.
God Exists

I will ground the existence of God using principles of logic in the form of syllogistic arguments. My first argument states that everything that has a beginning has a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe had a cause. I can prove that the universe had a beginning due to the big bang, and that the universe is expanding. If one looks into space with a spectroscope one would see all the stars in space in every direction is red, meaning the light they produce is moving outwards, concluding that the universe is expanding. If you take that light and rewind time the expanded universe shrinks until it reaches its beginning aka the big bang. Also it is impossible for the universe to be infinite, I will display a visualization of this below. - - - - - - - - - - - A Above lets say we are living at the moment of "A", if the universe was infinite there would be an infinite number of moments prior to "A", therefore it is impossible to reach "A". This is a philosophical impossibility, therefore the universe had a beginning, and everything that has a beginning has a cause. Also we as human beings are both potential and actual beings, because at one point we did not exist until we were born. God would have to be pure actuality, externally existing or timeless. Because if God were both a potential being and actual being, he would have had to be created by something, then one would ask who created that god? Or what about the god that created him? It creates in infinite regression similar to the example above that is philosophically impossible. Now that I have grounded the fact the universe had a cause, I will now explain why that cause was God, everything that has a design has a designer, the universe has a design, therefore the universe had a designer. The only thing that can design something is a mind, which creates things that have purposes. We can see this intent through The anthropic principle which states that the universe is finely tuned in order to sustain life. Slight changes would destroy all life. Also through the idea of irreducible complexity, take the cell for example and how complicated it is, with all the organelles and proteins. These parts in cell display functionality, minds set functionality. It is virtually impossible for these principles to occur without a mind to create them.
God Exists

God doesn't exist because of logic. In order for God to exist, there has to be a principle, just like how everything on Earth does. The fact that you are able to post on this website to talk about the existence of God is because someone in time decided to create a website that allowed its users to debate, not an all powerful being decided that, "Hm... Let my children talk about stuff." Also, if the bible contains words of God, that means God wants a window to have sex with all of her dead husband's brothers until they produce a male offspring. So tell me, how does God exist?
Which is better on this site Opinions(Pro) or Poll(Con).

My opponent has said that in opinions there is a word minimum of 50. This is actually a bad thing, as many questions don't have to be extremely elaborated on. For example, I just refuted my opponent's argument in 40 words. Now on to my own arguments: 1-Opinions have a word minimum: My opponent has already brought this up, so my thanks to him. 2-Polls have more potential for variety: I didn't know how else to word the contention, but basically what I mean by that is that polls give the creator and the voters more elbow room. With an opinion it's just Yes/No, but with a poll you can have as many answers as you want. In fact, polls have a "face-off" option when being created in which you can make it in virtually the same format as an opinion but with less limitations. There's also a poll option in which you can leave it open for more people to add more ideas so that there are even more perspectives. Finally, with polls there is a comment option whereas with opinions there is not. 3-Polls are easier to use: If you see an opinion, you have to think up a short little title and then write 50 words or more about your reasoning. With a poll, you can put an answer in in seconds. Though this does add to the chances of trolls and idiots, it also provides convenience and user-friendliness that opinions lack. Also, this site counts a word as something with a space on either side, so someone could just put a a a a a and count it as 5 words. Unfortunately, there's no way to foolproof against trolls, and fool proofing to idiots could even count as discrimination.
Hillary Clinton will not get the inner cities to vote like Obama did because she's not black

I support the argument that Hillary Clinton will not be able to get the inner city minorities to come out to vote because she isn't black. Obama was a political phenomenon. Districts with historically low voter turnout were posting incredibly high voting numbers for Obama. That is what made him unbeatable. Because she is not black, Hillary will not be able to repeat Obama's results. Even if Obama campaigns heavily for her, the black community will never be as motivated for a white woman like they were for a black male. Sad, but true.
Life is pointless.

My opponent builds his arguments on the premise that God doesn't exist or that he doesn't care about us. Therefore life has no purpose besides taking care of ourselves. I would like to remind him that there is no proof of God's existence either way. Since pro has the burden of proof, he therefore can't use the non-existence of God as an argument. As of this this day it is still unclear as to how and why our universe began to exist and -though progress is being made- how and why life began to exist on earth. The big bang and inflation theory explain how energy and condensed matter was able to turn into the universe we know today. However, it is still a mystery as to what caused the big bang. This means that up to this day, it is open for interpretation. I believe that God caused the big bang and started a chain reaction which eventually led to planet Earth being formed by materials like iron, nickel etc. This earth would eventually develop its own atmosphere and allowed life to exist on this planet. Micro-organisms turned into bigger organisms, which turned into fish and eventually mammals. Humans came up top. At a certain point in time humans developed the ability to think about abstract things like religion and culture, which helped them to dominate the earth and bring us to where we are today. It is still a mystery what direction humankind is heading, so it is foolish to assume our lives are all for nothing. An individual life may seem purposeless to some. But collectively, we managed to set foot on the moon and split the atom. There is clearly no limit to what humans can do as a species, and I believe that in time we may discover our true purpose and origins.
Life is pointless.

-Since it cannot be proven that there is a God or not, we cannot prove that the purpose of life is to serve Him. -The only purpose we have is to please ourselves while alive. The behaviors described in the definition of life is mostly based on our instincts. We learn, and practice, and try so hard to give ourselves meaning, but have little effect on the universe as a whole. -Imagine there was a God. He created all the universe. Why would he care about use specifically when there is so much more universe? Besides, he hasn"t done anything to show that he is paying attention is recent history. So if he is not paying attention, we have little more purpose than to please ourselves, which has no effect in the long run. Everything about us, what we learn, what we like, is wiped away at death.
Life is pointless.

Life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Pointless: having little or no sense, use, or purpose. For the sake of argument I'll present myself as a catholic christian, who believes life is in service to God. Because pro is making the assertion, I would like to ask him to prove (or at least prove beyond the assertion being a mere opinion) that life is pointless.
we should not have to have three debates before voting for a debate.

thank you. i really don't have much of an idea of how to argue. I cam to look at topics and vote (without trolling like I do in this post) Rebuttal 1 My opponent says that i do not provide evidence that there is a God and claims that God is an unproven "theory" of life, but then doesn't provide evidence of his own claim. Argument 1 I agree that unfair voting could be a big problem. I understand that the three questions could reduce unfair voting to a more moderate level, but why three? Why not 1? Regardless, people could just type up 3 debates and continue to vote unfairly. Perhaps people like myself want to vote on debates before starting debates, ourselves. I believe that only one debate is needed. It would kill off people who didn't want to actually use the site for real, fair purposes and would not burden people who would like to vote and read debates before actually getting into debates. Reasons why some people may want to read and vote before starting debates would be to "get their feet wet and test the water before jumping in. " To ease themselves into the site before losing debates because they (like myself) are not well educated in having to debate. By making "noobs" have one debate, people could determine whether this person is out to "troll" or out to actually be "real" on this site. By having to do three debates, this person may have three lost debates right from the beginning, instead of only one. Argument 2 Couldn't everything you are saying be done with one debate, rather than 3? The possibility of negative consequences for the new person would be less harsh. I seriously thank you for taking it easy lol.
Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves.

Pro has not refuted most of my positions (sometimes Pro says my positions are wrong and should be ignored because they are wrong; this logic is not meaningful). Pro has BOP. Pro is and has been claiming that "government ought to protect citizens from citizens" is always correct. My job as Con is and has been to point out how "governments ought protect citizens from citizens" is not always correct. I feel that I have successfully proved this statement is not always correct over the last two rounds. (Round 3) When Pro evoked the Fallacist"s Fallacy, he stated: "From this assertion she concludes "With Premise 1 invalid (aka false), the conclusion is also false. "This is a textbook example of the fallacist"s fallacy. This is because "Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions. " " He conceded that my statement [With Premise 1 invalid (aka false)] is a fallacious argument and [the conclusion is also false] is a true conclusion. I accept his concession that "the conclusion is . .. false" to be a true conclusion.
Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves.

Con asks “If Pro made the mistake about including the US Government, then why did Pro not also exclude the excerpt from the US Constitution?” I am not sure if con is intentionally trying to cause confusion or is simply confused. This debate is about governments in general. This is clear via, the resolution, definition, and my arguments. I do cite the Constitution of the U.S. as an example outlining the proper role of government and do so because it is as I stated “Perhaps, the most well-known and accessible description of the proper role of Government.” It is also clear that this was intended as an example of and not the subject of the debate as I then conclude,It is reasonable to assume these goals and purposes ought to be the goals and purposes of all governments. Con did respond that “No two governments are the same. The culture and heritage of a nationality have (at least) slightly altered goals when compared with the culture and heritage of another nationality.” Sure, there may be “at least” slight variation in the specifics of the goals present, but the argument stands that the ideal goals of government (in general) cannot be met if governments do not protect citizens from harm. I was only able to demonstrate this by presenting an example of the ideal goals governments have. Essentially I get from Con’s arguments that governments can harm citizens. Sure this is true. This does not impact my arguments whatsoever. Final overview: Con seems to have misunderstood my initial observation. This resolution is based around “if” a government should, not “how” it should. Thus all contentions that she offered demonstrating issues with “how” miss the mark and are dismissed. This throws out every contention she has made. I mentioned early in the debate that my conclusion follows logically from P1 and P2. P1: Governments ought to protect citizens from harm. Con does not contend the meat of this argument and I extended it. It still stands. The ideal goals of government (in general) cannot be met if governments do not protect citizens from harm. P2: Citizens can and do harm themselves No contention was presented. This premise stands. We can thus conclude that C: Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves This debate is a clear win for pro. Thanks for reading and voting.
Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves.

Hello Karmic :D Definition: "Qualified Immunity": it protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated plaintiffs" rights. [1] *If Pro made the mistake about including the US Government, then why did Pro not also exclude the excerpt from the US Constitution? Notice how Pro did not say that including this excerpt was a mistake. Thus, while Pro states in Round 2 that he does not want to talk about the US Government, he implicitly states that he in fact does want to talk about the US Government by means of the ideals set forth in the US Constitution. Pro hand waved his three mistakes with a simple "The Fallacist"s Fallacy" excuse. He is claiming his conclusion is always correct. His Conclusion is not "always correct". Ideals are great and all, except when the government exempts itself from having to follow those ideals. In the Supreme Court Case Town of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, the Supreme Court finds that federal agents have "qualified immunity". In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court extends this protection to police officers. The Patriot Act was arguably one of the worst offenders against the Constitution"s ideals [2]. The DOJ released "White Papers" which illustrate how constitutional ideals mean nothing when there is a potential threat to national-security [3]. This is to say that ideals are only relevant to government so long as government abides by the ideals. Round 2 was supposed to be opening arguments which is exactly what I presented: cases in which government harm citizens. Governments should not protect citizens from citizens when governments are the ones doing greater harm to citizens than citizens are doing to citizens. The Supreme Court agrees with this position: "An agent acting - albeit unconstitutionally - in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own." [4] Citizens do not spray each other with mustard gas. Citizens do not spread biological weapons through towns for the sole purpose of seeing how people will react. Citizens do not run over other Citizens with tanks (Tiananmen Square). These are some evils governments have done when given power to protect their citizens from their citizens. This is why I believe Pro"s conclusion is not "always correct". Sources: [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [Patriot Act] http://www.gpo.gov... [2] http://www.scn.org... [3] http://msnbcmedia.msn.com... [4] http://caselaw.findlaw.com...