BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Can't rationally argue for theism

The context in which I used the word theism in my title, perhaps out of lack for a better word, was in the more narrow context of specific religious beliefs. There are people like John Lennox and Matt Slick that actually feel they can justify their specific brand of Christianity rationally. see: . http://video.google.com... . http://www.mattslick.com... My purpose here was to debate a person that shares such feeling about his specific religion. What you have done was to use an out of context definition of theism which makes it almost identical to deism and then proceeded by saying all my arguments are irrelevant. Nonetheless, since we are here to debate here goes: All we have to argue on basically, is your following statement, which I do not agree with: "Anyway, things that have purpose imply design. Like computers. Plato and Aristotle argued that complex things imply design. The statement 'Our bodies are so purposeful and well shaped, its like they were built. ' didn't sound reasonable to you? It's not like an 'I'm right your wrong' argument. It makes sense. " This is not a powerful rational argument. What you are basically saying here is that an appearance of design is enough to warrant a designer right ? That may be a good argument for people living in the time of Plato and Aristotle, but not today. For example, the earth has the appearance of being flat, does it not ? The moon has the appearance of being as large as about 4 human heads, is it ? In fact these two claims managed to fool humanity for a very long time indeed. It took some highly observant people to look more carefully and notice that the earth has an horizon and therefore, despite its appearance, can not be flat or to notice that angular size is not the same as absolute size by observing distant objects. So what have we learned ? we humans have the appearance of being designed therefore we have been designed right ? Wrong. It took the genius of a man like Darwin to find an evidence based theory that shows how we all evolved out of humble beginnings by means of natural selection. The lesson is therefore to always look more closely, that is beyond appearance. Human beings are not like computers because they have a mechanism by which they can reproduce and evolve. So how are we going to continue this debate ? Is it going to be creationism vs. evolution or something else ?
Can't rationally argue for theism

I think the a topic of whether or not the universe had a designer or designers and the issue of the first uncaused cause are all very interesting and worth a serious debate, maybe in some other topic, this is called deism. Nevertheless even if one grants deism as a rational standing point it remains to be seen how one can make a rational argument for any particular religion from this point. People many times fail to notice this fact, but arguing for a designer is totally insufficient for making claims about a specific theistic belief, such as Christianity or Islam for example. Note that even if a theist was somehow able to demonstrate conclusive evidence that this designer/starter god is a personal god which cares about human affairs, answers prayers, and interferes in the natural course of the world, in the form of miracles, all his work would still be ahead of him in showing that his specific religion is correct since: - All the religions that exist or that have existed in the past make claims about personal gods and miracles. - These religions are incompatible, so they can't all be true. Even if we could somehow narrow the list of religions down to the religions that are practiced today, it would still be impossible to know which of them are actually true. How about "Sathya Sai Baba" the god man ? The current estimates are that he has around 6,000,000 followers, some argue that there are up to 100,000,000 followers, many of them claim that he is a true miracle worker and they have seen his amazing miracles ! see http://en.wikipedia.org... Imagine a person like this Sathya Sai Baba living 2000 years ago, when we had no knowledge of science. If anything, believing in Sathya Sai Baba claims is more rational than believing in the Jewish, Christian or Muslim claims since, at least, we can say the following: a. We know for sure that this person actually exists b. The people that claim Sathya Sai Baba is a god man are alive today and can be interviewed This is much more than we can say for our ancient religions. Carl Sagan once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ancient eye witnesses, hearsay, or people just being certain of something to be true are just not good enough to be considered evidence, not to mention extraordinary evidence. One way to validate our worldview is to verify it for coherency. For example if I catch my wife cheating on me I can't continue to claim that she is faithful to me because that would be incoherent. So the worldview of someone that claims that the historical data that exists in the form of the gospel is enough to substantiate extraordinary evidence for Christianity must also agree that the data that exists about UFOs, Big foot, Vampires and Sathya Sai Baba are more than sufficient as well, otherwise he is being inconsistent, like a cheating faithful wife. Please note that the topic of the debate is about rationality. If you claim that a specific religion can be taught by appealing to emotion or to "leaps of faith" then I have no argument with you, I am only arguing with people that claim that their religion is a result of rational thinking.
Can't rationally argue for theism

"Ok so now we are arguing about deism. " I defined theism with an adequate source, and my opponent kept trying to say: No, your arguing deism. No, I arguing theism. This is why I have won this debate. I gave adequate definitions of rational. I proved that theism can be rationally argued because it can use logic as defense. He said it can't be done, and I showed him how Aristotle and Plato did it. A rational argument is one backed with logical explanation. And I showed that a rational argument being discredited doesn't make it irrational. You admitted that this argument would be rational if we lacked information, so I guess if the world blows up and only a few people survive and all knowledge is lost, it will be rational again.
THW would recognize the independence of Catalonia from Spain.

Well, I might as well outline the general direction my argument would likely take.1.) There is no historical basis to consider Catalonia an independent Nation (Barcelona was a semi-independent county for a short while at one point but always under heavy influence from both France and Spain, never the whole of Catalonia, however, and never an independent country). 2.) The economic reasons cited by nationalists are spurrious at best, and independence would likely be disasterous for the Catalonian economy.3.) Independence would culturally and politically harm Catalonia, as it would continue down the path of denying much of its cultural heritage where it is shared with the rest of Spain and Catalonia would automatically be outside of the EU and NATO.Other than that I would probably spend time rebutting statements by my opponent and celebrating the richness of Spanish culture, both Catalan and otherwise.¡Viva España!
Marching Band is a sport!!

The question of whether or not marching band is a sport does not come down to the athletic characteristics of marching band, but instead, how we define a sport. Now, most dictionaries will tell us that a sport is something along the lines of an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others. However, this definition is flawed for two key reasons, and we must seek to redefine. Firstly, the claim of physical exertion is far too broad to reach any decisive conclusions about what counts as a sport. Under this definition, virtually anything can be a sport because almost everything requires physical exertion. Secondly, the competitive aspect of this definition is not sufficiently limiting. Again, almost anything can become a sport under this definition, since anything can become competitive. By using this definition, for example, watching youtube can be considered a sport because it could be competitive and it requires physical exertion to focus one's eyes on a screen and type with one's fingers. This obviously is an exaggeration, but it still applies, and under this definition, things like cooking and violin-playing would be sports. Clearly, such activities are not sports, so we must seek to redefine what qualifies a sport. To account for the flaws in the common definition of a sport, I propose a new definition. A sport should be defined as "an activity requiring physical exertion and skill where one or more individuals compete objectively." Defining a sport as an activity where competition must be objective essentially means that any activity that is a sport must not be influenced by any matter of personal opinion. For example, a ball must decisively pass through a hoop, or a person must complete an activity in a measurable amount of time. This eliminates activities that are subjectively scored, where a judge views a competitor and then ranks them based on that judge's analysis. This may seem unfair at first, however, by using this definition, we are able to maintain the necessity for physical exertion while eliminating activities that clearly are not sports. Certainly, many activities not covered under this definitions require extreme physical exertion and are athletic. However, for the sake of maintaining a clear boundary between sport and not-sport, they should not be considered sports. Under this definition, marching band cannot be considered a sport because individuals competing in marching band are not scored objectively. At competitions, scoring is based on a judge's ranking of competitors- a subjective system. Yes, performers in marching bands are athletic, and the activity requires strength and endurance, but it is not a sport. If we use the "standard" definition to consider marching band a sport, then we rely on a definition that defines every single activity as a sport and are unable to create distinctive boundaries. Because of this, we cannot consider marching band nor similar activities to be sports.
Marching Band is a sport!!

Marching Band is a sport. The definition of a sport according to dictionary.com is "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc." In marching band participants (usually) march around a football field for approximately 8-10 minutes to perform a halftime show. They also have the option to dance and maybe even groove. Members are also carrying instruments that they are playing and memorizing the music, aka severely multi-tasking. So therefore, Marching band DOES require athletic activity and skill, that would consider it a sport.
Batman would win in any fight against a DC or Marvel Hero or Villain

1. Batman never killed the whole Justice League. A. Batman vowed to never kill. B. I assume you are referring to the cover of the JLA: Tower of Babel storyline, which shows a Batman-like figure standing amongst fallen bodies of Justice League members. However, Pro (you) fails to understand this storyline's true plot: From http://en.wikipedia.org...: Tower of Babel deals with Batman's perceived betrayal to the superhuman community by keeping and concealing hidden records concerning the strengths and weaknesses of his allies in the JLA, which include plans to neutralize his allies in a fight. His files are stolen by the criminal mastermind Ra's al Ghul, who uses them to defeat the League through a coordinated attack in order to prevent them from interfering with his latest scheme, the reduction of the global population. You see, Batman is not standing there alone because he defeated his teammates. He is standing there alone because he is feeling sad and guilty that he betrayed them and let Ra's al Ghul defeat them. 2. No technology or amount of money is useful enough to make something as mighty as Mjolnir. Mjolnir was forged by the gods where the gods live, Asgard.3. Thor can not be unarmed in this match. The only way one can unarm Thor is if they somehow got a hold of his Mjolnir. This is not possible, because Batman is not the kind of being Odin would deem worthy enough to hold Mjolnir. Plus, even if Bats was worthy enough, Thor still has very good skills at fighting and strategies. 4. Materials in suits do not matter. Even though Batman's suit may contain the strongest man-made metal, Thor's suit contains the strongest god-made metal.
Batman would win in any fight against a DC or Marvel Hero or Villain

Yes surely one swing of Thors hammer would kill Batman but if he does not hit Batman then there is no other weaponry in his inventory and if he is disarmed then there is also no way of his success. also all of Batman's gadgets make him nearly invincible, he killed the whole Justice League. Batman would easily Disarm Thor of his Hammer then he may be able to conjurer it back but in that time it may be over. Against your Arguement: 1) Batman has many technology and sums of money so he can make something that has the same power as the Mjolnir. 2) When disarmed he is Defenceless 3) Batmans Suit is made out of Kevlar which contains Rubber and Titanium the strongest man made Metal...
Batman would win in any fight against a DC or Marvel Hero or Villain

I choose Marvel Comics' Thor. Pro has not made it clear if I am to argue my character's victory in this round. But what the heck, I will. 1. Thor is a god, and the son of the allfather of all the gods. Batman is just a well-trained human. 2. Thor has mjolnir, one of the most indestructible and mightiest weapons in the Marvel Universe. One blow from this thing to Batman's head, chest, or stomach, and he's dead. Batman's weaponry includes many things such as batarangs, batclaws, batwires, whatever. None of them can compare to the power of Mjolnir. 3. Powers. Thor can control the weather, using lightning and vicious attacks to his advantage. Batman doesn't even have any superpowers.
Music composition contest

. http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... I made an error. Smithereens isn't having technical difficulties, I was though. I wasn't able to view videos from DDO, and if I posted a video to a debate it didn't appear when I hit the "review" button. I thought her video hadn't posted because I couldn't view it. Here is a link to screen shots I took to show that I am being truthful. I apologize for any confusion. [. http://www.debate.org...] Here is the link to the piano composition from of the written music from R2. It is posted here as "My Edited Video. " The electronic track that I was supposed to post in R3, but didn't because I didn't think Smithereens track had posted, and I didn't want the debate to get out of sequence, I will post a few links to, and also post the video. Meticulous Shadows is the title of the electronic track for the "Dark" theme of R3 and you can listen to it here. . http://www.soundclick.com... . http://www.soundclick.com... . https://youtu.be... Despite having some difficulty getting my material to post, I am glad to have done this debate with Smithereens because it has allowed both of us to share our musical creations on DDO.
Music composition contest

This is Round 3, again. Theme: DarkAccording to Emmarie, my video didn't embed and isn't showing in the previous round, so this is Round 3, again. I've included the audio from R2 as well since the link broke.The subtheme I chose for R3 was 'Nightmares.'R3 Composition: 1. Youtube (Preferred)https://youtu.be...http://youtu.be...; 2. Soundcloud https://soundcloud.com...R2 Composition audio:1. Soundcloud (Preferred)https://soundcloud.com...2. Instaudio https://instaud.io... A little bit about the pieces in conclusion: R2 Sonatina: I wrote hastily for this debate so it is somewhat basic and should be able to be sight read by most pianists without difficultly. I've mixed in some modern elements, such as the two bar Codettas, which contain a modern stylistic motif in cadence that would normally be odd for a classical sonata.R3 Nightmares; Lucid 3:This piece was more difficult to make, and I ended up using a chord progression from a fugue I had written earlier. The fugue in question is not discernible in the music, but I tried to input some fugue elements into the highly modern electronic composition. That translated into the high abundance of voices that can be heared competing with each other throughout the piece. The sounds and instruments themselves were for the large part invented by me, though not all. The rationale was to create sounds that could relate perfectly to nightmares, such as the alarm clock buzz in music form. Percussion and strings were refined from samples I own. The name 'Nightmares; Lucid III' indicates that this was my third attempt at the piece. I may or may not completely abandon the first two attempts now that the product is complete.That's all from me. Thank you to Emmarie for accepting this debate and thank you for gracing us with you and your Son's music. / Heil Smithers /*bows deeply*
Music composition contest

Due to the technical difficulties that my opponent and I are having, I will be posting my electronic composition in R4, since she won't have hers musical piece posted until R4. Her link to her piano xcomposition di9dn't post in R2, so she posted the link to what was supposed to have been posted in R2 in R3. Her video to her electronic piece didn't post in R3, so she will be posting that link in R4. I had technical difficulties in R2 as well. I couldn't edit my video on youtube to snip it to the length that highlights my son's piano piece, so I posted a link that began where I wanted to snip the clip at. The link to the edited video of what was supposed to be the piano composition of R2 round is posted in this round. I tried to post the edited video, as Smithereens also tried to post the video for her electronic piece, but my video won't post on my debate either :( Smithereens and I have discussed it and we decided will resume the electronic portion of the debate in R4, where we will both post links to our electronic musical compositions.
Music composition contest

Smithereens has a great composition and is definately more prepared for this than I am. I did my best to post a hand written composition that my son Jahziah composed and recorded a video of him playing it so that you can hear the audio. The sound quality isn't the best, and the composition is really kind of a loop of a basic bass line and melody that he intended to built onto. I would have posted the video on the debate, but I wasn't able to edit it to get the best "take" so the link to the video starts at 1 min. 2 sec. since that's where he bagan to play it the best. He hadn't played it in awhile and was kinda rusty.It's titled "Bliss"https://youtu.be... He also wrote lyrics It's like a dream just before you wake The real world seeps in and mixes with the fake A reminder of what life really is A small piece of truth a light touch of bliss
Music composition contest

R2: Sheet music. Theme: LightThe specific theme I have chosen for my own song is 'Sonatina,' which is a light version of the Sonata. The music itself is also very light and carefree. Presenting to you Sonatina, in 1 movement.I've made an extra round in this debate just in case something fragile gets screwed up, like these photos not coming out how we intend them to. If something doesn't turn out correctly here, please refer to the comments.Audio: https://clyp.it...;Sheet music: Sheet music perma links: http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...*bows*
Music composition contest

This is a contest in music styles and composition. Not performance.Methodology:>R1 is for acceptance only.>In R2, each contestant will post an original composition of sheet music for piano in a classical/romantic era style (eg fugues, marches, sonatas). If your notation software exports midi/wav/mp3 or you otherwise have an audio rendition of the music, you are allowed to post it as well. This is optional.>In R3, each contestant will produce an original piece in any modern style (eg jazz, rock, dubstep) for electronic or sampled instruments. You will need some sort of digital audio workstation (eg Logic Pro, Reason, Cubase).>Each song must exude a specific theme of the contestant's choice. The theme must be linked to the grand theme of that round. For R2, the theme is 'Light.' For R3, the theme is 'Dark.'Scoring:Anyone is allowed to vote on this debate provided they have sufficient knowledge of music in order to adequately use the following criterion:Conduct (1 point): Overall, whose thematic expression was richer and more vivid? (Music Theory)Grammar (1 point): Overall, whose songs were more enjoyable to listen to? (General)Arguments (3 points): Overall, whose songs had superior construct sophistication? (Music Theory)Sources (2 points): Overall, whose compositions were most professionally made? (General)Votes on topics labbelled 'music theory' in parentheses must demonstrate a theoretical difference between the contestents. 'General' does not require this.Pro begins in R2.
America Should Legalize Gay marriage

Just as clarification, I am FEMALE. Please note, the only reason I am bringing this up is because you called me a "he." *teardrops* Okay, now that I've gotten past that, here is my argument: Firstly, to prevent GLBT from marrying is a withdrawal of one of our natural rights, the right to pursuit happiness. In fact, the constitution clearly states that "All men are created equal," which implies we all should receive the same rights and should allow them to marry. Also, on the ground that we are all created equal, if we can inter-racially marry, why not same-sex marriage too? This is not only discriminatory but also cruel and unfair punishment for something they were born with, not a decision they can make. Second, according to a 2010 analysis by American Journal of Public Health, it showed that states banned from same-sex marriage had an average increase of 37% in mood disorders, 42% in alcohol use disorders, and 248% in general anxiety disorders. Another statistic that shows gay rights are a good influence on people is that the is an average divorce rate of 20% lower in states that allow same-sex marriage. In fact, Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, also has the lowest divorce rate in the country, clearly a sign of GOOD INFLUENCE. Lastly, I would like to point out that the fact that marriage licences are required for union between two people, means that marriage should be a legal matter, not a religious one. Opponents of gay rights may state that same-sex marriage is against the Bible, but we have a policy in America called separation of church and state, which should keep bible-thumpers (no offense) out of interfering with gay rights. I would like to conclude that we as America should either make marriage strictly a legal matter, in which case, religious entities have no say against any form of marriage, and licences for marriage are determined by state officials; this way, GLBTs can move to a different state if there are any problems. Alternately, this can be strictly a religious matter, in which case, states can't outlaw gay union, and solely churches or other religious temples can unite two people. this way, if a church refuses to marry two GLBT people, they have the option of either switching churches or converting to a different religion that is more accepting. (My sources are in my worded into my paragraphs btw)