BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part 2)

Con says "It excludes evolution because evolution is not entirely by 'accident'. Accident infers that there was an original cause, and there was a mistake in the process or whatever. The evolution of organisms from small, simple things to grander, more complex things is not entirely by chance. It contains a healthy dose of chance, but it is not purely by chance." Even thou I clarified in my argument what I meant by "accident" I think ill reword my 2nd argument so this doesn't become an argument over semantics. 1) Something exists either by intent or non intent or necessity 2) Humans do not exist by non intent or necessity 3) Therefore humans exist by intent In my argument I meant "accident" as something that happens in the absence of any intent, and yes I see how accident when used usually refers to some sort of effect that had its origins in an intentional cause but the effect deviated from the original intent. Con says "the evolution of organisms from small, simple things to grander, more complex things is not entirely by chance. It contains a healthy dose of chance, but it is not purely by chance" Notice con states that evolution happens not entirely by chance, well what is this other thing that evolution is comprised of, since its not entirely be chance ? Although I suspect Con will argue that the other factor of evolution is chance within the boundary of natural law, that raises the question, is this natural law the result of intent, non intent, or necessity. I'll wait for Con explanations for his claims, seeing that he claims that premise 1) of my 2nd argument which states 1) Something exists either by intent or non intent or necessity" is some how fallacious. Con says "Yes, I am claiming that. I contend that organisms with multiple working parts are much more likely to be formed from evolution and not ID." Now I would like to point out, Con doesn't just state that evolution allows for the possibility, but Con states that organisms with multiple workings parts are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be formed from evolution and not ID. I will give Con an opportunity to back up those claims. I look forward to Cons response.
You slice the cake, I'll pick the first piece

Something smells funny, and due to that funny smell I must be Con. According to the definition stipulated, "Marriage" would have to be approved by both the government and the Christian Church. The explicit "legalization" of such a joint institution would have the effect of establishing some "Christian Church" as having a veto on state approval of contracts not necessarily involving said "Christian Church", despite it's dictate to approve gays. I.e., it would establish some "Christian Church" (or some bastardized version thereof) as the state religion, and also require "consent" from that church from gay marriage". This would lead indubitably to discrimination against non-Christians, or at the very least require them to sit through a Christian ceremony to achieve some legal status, thus requiring them to sanction those beliefs. Tossing the term marriage to the side in order to establish "civil unions" as the sole governmental involvement in that domain is no great problem. So long as each Church can only deny requests for marriage that are made of their institution (i.e. Marriage license requests of the Catholic Church can be denied by the Catholic Church, fulfilling the slice's requirement, but it cannot deny requests made of, say, a Synagogue, since it has no part in fulfilling those requests), that slice is far superior to a state establishment of religion.
You slice the cake, I'll pick the first piece

Topic: Gay marriage should be expressly legalized by the Federal government. Definitions: Gay Marriage - the legal and religious binding of two persons legally registered as of the same gender as recognized by the US government and the Christian Church. Federal / US Government - The national governing body of the United States of America as defined and regulated in the US Constitution and any relevant legislation / Supreme Court decisions. Civil Union - the legal but not religious binding of any two persons of any gender as recognized by the US government, which provides the same legal rights as marriage. Stipulations - Outside of this argument, no stipulations will be made. (You can't slice any cake, and neither can I after you pick your slice.) The passage of a law expressly legalizing gay marriage will cause no jurisdiction battles, therefore the decision to permit gay marriage will be absolute unless specifically revoked; Federal legislation is the supreme law of the land. No emotional appeals will be made; arguments will appeal to voters' logic. The Slices: Pro - Gay marriage should be expressly legalized by the Federal government. Con - The Catholic Church should have the right to deny a marriage license because marriage is a religious contract just as it is legal. Instead, the federal government should establish a system of civil unions and civil union licenses parallel to the marriage system.
You slice the cake, I'll pick the first piece

The above is not the actual resolution I am debating, it is a metaphor that sets the terms of this challenge.. My opponent shall write the resolution, any resolution they please. I then choose which position on it I will argue (So I may or may not be the actual "Pro" in this debate). So, I advise you to only accept this debate if A. You are a traditional debate wonk who is willing to argue any position, or B. you are quite sure the resolution is one on which I'll actually disagree with you on (my profile should be complete enough that it won't be hard to tell for most debates). There is a hidden third possibility I would also advise you to take the challenge under, but I won't be telling you what that third possibility is, just to mess with your head :D. Feel free to disregard the stated or implied advice, so long as you comply with the terms of the challenge, if you think you know some other good way to go about it :D Other than that, go wild.
Concealed carry laws help reduce violent crime

I will show that concealed carry laws do not reduce violent crime in any significant, measurable way. Many states have "shall issue" laws, mainly because it is considered a fundamental right. I am not against this. However, the idea that such laws actually reduce crime is an illusion. Although there may be a deterrent effect of concealed carry laws, there are also other effects that cause an increase of violent crime. Let me mention a few: Obviously, concealed weapons are used in crimes. Take for example road rage. Michael Dunn, a concealed weapon carrier, was convicted of first degree murder when he shot into an SUV with teenagers because of loud music. Nearby in my state Michigan, a father was shot in front of his family after a road rage confrontation with a concealed carry permit holder [4]. Murder by CCW holders are relatively rare, but they do happen. Another, in my opinion more important, factor is that concealed carry laws leads to more risky and confrontational behavior of the concealed weapon carrier. Studies have shown that carrying a weapon makes a person more paranoid [2]. Take for example the well publicized George Zimmermann case [3]. He followed Trayvon Martin which led to a violent confrontation. A violent crime was committed, although one may argue who the perpetrator was. It seems unlikely that Zimmermann would have followed Martin had he not been armed. The (false) sense of security of a concealed weapon may lead to more confrontational behavior that can lead to violent crime, but the concealed carrier, or by someone else. Almost all studies do not take this kind of behavior change into account. Criminals have several choices. Instead of being deterred, they could also react to a concealed carry law by arming themselves more, to have the upper hand in a possible confrontation. Such behavior would lead to more violent crime. This effect has also not been taken into account in all the studies that have been cited. In particular, deterrence theory will give only a lopsided picture, because it assumes that the criminal only has 2 choices, either commit a crime, or not. So now we have some reasons of why concealed carry laws may increase violent crime, and also one reason why it might reduce violent crime. So which effect is greater? The National Academy of Sciences, THE authority in science matters, reviewed the science on this question (including the work of John Lott) and found "There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime. " [5] The Academy studied 253 scientific journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications. [1] . http://www.cnn.com... [2] Biggs, A. T. , Brockmole, J. R. , & Witt, J. K. (2014). Armed and attentive:_Holding a weapon can bias attentional priorities in scene viewing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.cbsnews.com... [5] . http://www8.nationalacademies.org...
Evolution is not part of atheism.

Atheism as an ideological and intellectual atom does not include evolution. This is true. But nothing can be considered as an intellectual atom within the bounds of reasonable debate, for to do so is to accept an idea without proof or context, to exclude all questions of "why" or "how. " Therefore, it is folly to do so for an idea that is as essential to reason as atheism. What is this context that atheism resides in? First, one must consider the ideas that lead to atheism. For the most public supporters of atheism, this idea is simply the lack of proof for any supernatural phenomena. There is no proof of spirits or ghosts. It is simple, and perhaps logically necessary, to expand this to include the Holy Ghost/Spirit. In other words, it is a profound respect for strict empiricism that leads to atheism for the VAST majority of "believers". What this love of empiricism implies regarding the origin of species is evolution, which encompasses natural selection and mutation. These are the only things that could cause speciation in a world without ghosts and aliens with invisible evolution lasers. Empiricism implies atheism; it also implies evolution. Both atheism and evolution find their origins in the same idea. They are part of the exact same philosophical phylum. As for your use of theistic scientists like Ken Miller, I would argue that their faith is so unimportant to their beliefs regarding physical reality that one could say it doesn't exist at all. Every theistic scientist would rather cut out his tongue than cite the Bible/Koran/Tao Te Ching in one of his published papers. Their "spirituality" is utterly divorced from their professional lives because they believe, quite rightfully, that their spiritual beliefs do not deserve nearly the same level of respect as their empirical observations. One could almost say that they hope for rather than believe in their God. And regarding the Raelians, their beliefs are as Judeo-Christian as a belief system can get without including the Holy Trinity. They believe that the "elohim", the generic Hebrew term for gods, created the Earth, except they were really powerful aliens instead of gods. Their belief system attempts to explain and justify another belief system (Judeo-Christian mythology) that atheists reject completely. This is probably calculated to recruit Christians, but that is a topic for another time. Because the belief system of Raelians is founded on a very non-atheistic one, Raelians are not atheists.
Liberalism Is Not Good for America (Economics)

Introduction to Debate:This is a challenge that I have sent to the user Reformist. I believe that we have some irreconsilable political and economic differences, and that we need to argue them objectively on a formal debating platform. Almost as a disclaimer, I would like to mention the official rules of this debate, and futher clarify what the debate will be centered.- This debate will be centered around modern day left wing vs right wing - This means, that we will be talking about Free Market Capitalism, which is a right wing approach, and government planning, which is a left-wing approach. As a breakdown, I will be putting up a few topics that we will discuss:Minimum Wage - specifically being the 10.10 fed. wage Obama is advocating for, and the $15 that Sanders is advocating for.Government regulation - higher taxes, standards, subsidies, etc.Conclusively, the debate will be left wing vs right wing. I am trying to write in detail, so that nothing is confusing or outlandish. The debating is open to ANYTHING that involves liberal and conservative/libertarian economic platforms. For the sake of the debate, we will assume that all of the liberals belong to the Democratic party, and that all of the conservatives/Libertarians belong to the Republican Party.
Banning beauty contests

"I care about people. I don't like to see people hurt themselves because they are not good enough." You are hypocritical. You are trying to take an interest in people but you are saying they are not good enough. Who are you to tell them how to live their life? They can do whatever they want. They live in America, a country where you can do that. "The NCIS could have no problem finding out when and where a beauty contest is. Plus sometimes girls in those pageants break a few laws. So they find them and stop it." That is what the romans said when they were trying to ban christianity but they failed. There are ways around this. "I am not getting off topic at all." That is just a lie, but for the sake of arguing I will rebuttal it. "The promotion of increasing your chances of reproducing is a good thing because it allows humans to have a greater chance of survival." That is a good thing because we are not oppressing our human instinct of having sex, which gives the allusion of reproducing, even though there are ways to avoid reproducing. And we need to put people on birth control because there are too many people on the earth already and we need to cut the population down. "I am to stop her because if not me, she could never win and she could kill herself." Really? You want to stop her because she could kill herself. So should I stop skydiving because someone could get killed? YOU ARE NOT THE LITTLE GIRL!!! WHY ARE YOU STOPPING HER FROM DOING WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO!! " I rather ban beauty contest because beauty contests won't get you anywhere in life. " BEAUTY PAGEANT IS THERE LIFE!! By banning it you are taking it away!! "it only gives the winner a form of happiness. I rather ban it and make 1 person unhappy, whereas we could not ban it and make a group of girls/women unhappy." YOU WOULD MAKE EVERYONE UNHAPPY. Don't you get it? You are taking away their career. I understand you have good intentions but that is not right. What right do you have to stop them because I feel like it? You are trying to help, which is why instead of banning it, we could educate people why it is not good. Don't take a girl's right to choose what she wants to do when she grows up.
Banning beauty contests

Ok for this last round I am doing nothing, but using my brain. Let's begin the final round. 1: I care about people. I don't like to see people hurt themselves because they are not good enough. Give whatever money I have to those in need. I also help people when needed. I just don't like the fact that adults and children could hurt themselves just because they think they are not good enough. Just thinking I could save at least 1 life by banning beauty contests is a good enough reason for me to do this. 2: The NCIS could have no problem finding out when and where a beauty contest is. Plus sometimes girls in those pageants break a few laws. So they find them and stop it. 3: I am not getting off topic at all. Quoting from round 2 of your own words, "The promotion of increasing your chances of reproducing is a good thing because it allows humans to have a greater chance of survival." We are currently running out of room. Then you come in and say in round 3, "If we want to control the population, then we could be putting more people on birth control and encourage parents to have two or less children. You are getting completely off topic and you are not explaining how this relates to beauty pageants. You need to not regurgitate facts that you hear online and make educated claims about what you are saying." So the fact remains that I am not off topic whereas, you re the one who brought up the increase in survival. First you say let's have more people because of survival, and now you are saying birth control so in a way you are contradicting your own words. 4: q: If turning into a Barbie makes the girl feel good about herself, who are you to stop her? A: I am to stop her because if not me, she could never win and she could kill herself. I am not letting that happen. Q: If it gives her live a form of purpose and a form of happiness then why is it necessary to ban it? A: it only gives the winner a form of happiness. I rather ban it and make 1 person unhappy, whereas we could not ban it and make a group of girls/women unhappy. Q: How will banning beauty pageants solve anything? A: I rather ban beauty contest because beauty contests won't get you anywhere in life. Really it pretty much won't. Become athletic or smart and that might get you somewhere. Don't get hooked up on what you wear and look like, because deep down someone will like you for who you are. Banning beauty contests will be worth it knowing I saved at least 1 person from dying or doing something horrible to themselves.
Banning beauty contests

Sorry for the communication error. What I meant to say is you are using a website word for word and giving them credit and you are having me argue with a website and you had no part in publishing the article. You are just regurgitating facts and you are not using your own brain to think for yourself. Alright, let's get started. 1. You stated, "Your person is a mental health pro. They should know then they and everyone else knows when someone looses that makes people think they aren't good enough." I was directly quoting from your copy and pasted article. Also, if the girls are choosing to be in the beauty pageants, then why are you stopping them. It is there choice and it is not directly impacting your life. It impacts your life indirectly so slightly because you make it seem as though all girls are trying to become beauty pageant queens. However, the majority of people in the world are normal people. Their lives are mostly free from beauty pageants and their impact and they are content. However, those people may have high expectations for their own personal beauty, but beauty is evolving and people are simply trying to compete with the need to feel beautiful and better about themselves. Why do you care so much? You are not required to be in a child beauty pageant. Plus, beauty standards would be present in the world regardless of whether there are pageants or not. It is just juan nature. 2. It would be hard to enforce banning beauty pageants if they were to be banned, which you said in the quote, "The resource said the punishment is a bit extreme. They did not say it would be hard to enforce." If it is so easy to reinforce, then give me one good and ethical way that you can reinforce it. They are difficult to reinforce because they are committing no crime but rather are only offending a select group of people. 3. Beauty pageant should not get banned to save the world's population. How in anyway will that significantly affect the population of the earth? If we want to control the population, then we could be putting more people on birth control and encourage parents to have two or less children. You are getting completely off topic and you are not explaining how this relates to beauty pageants. You need to not regurgitate facts that you hear online and make educated claims about what you are saying. 4. If turning into a Barbie makes the girl feel good about herself, who are you to stop her? If it gives her live a form of purpose and a form of happiness then why is it necessary to ban it? You do not have to be a beauty pageant contestant so let those who want to enter a beauty pageant, enter and make themselves feel better. Also, I have one question for you How will banning beauty pageants solve anything? There will still be beauty standards and people will be competing to look more beautiful. Over time people will go greater distances to make themselves more beautiful. By banning beauty pageant, something else will take its place and your attempt to ban beauty pageants will be useless.
Banning beauty contests

YOU PLAGIARIZED PARTS OF YOUR ARGUMENT FROM http://www.usatoday.com... PEOPLE WHO ARE VOTING, LOOK INTO HIS ARGUMENT. I BET HE PLAGIARIZED OTHER STUFF I will try and be polite when critisizing you. There are quite a few things, which are incorrect and invalid about your argument and you should never use USA TODAY as your evidence for a political issue because the people of USA TODAY write WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR. So here are a list of things I found that 1. "Karen Kataline, a mental health professional near Denver who participated in child pageants in the 1960s, says she understands the motivation to ban the competitions, but doesn't think that's the answer. The problem "is not just the pageants, it's the parents" who support and encourage the sexualization of their children, says Kataline, author of the memoir FATLASH! Food Police & the Fear of Thin " A Cautionary Tale." This quote literally says, "she understands the motivation to ban the competitions, but doesn't think that is the answer." YOUR DEFENSE LITERALLY SAYS THAT BANNING CHILD BEAUTY PAGEANTS IS NOT THE ANSWER 2. "The proposed penalties of up to two years in prison and $40,000 in fines "seem a bit extreme" I am quoting FROM YOUR OWN EVIDENCE that banning beauty pageants would be difficult to enforce. 2. "It also makes women and girls believe that beauty is the most important thing ever when really your personality is what is most important!!!So that is why beauty contests without a doubt must be banned!" This is an opinion because what is your justification that personality is more important than good looks. This is subjective evidence, which may apply to more people, but that does not mean that you should ban it from those whose lives revolve around it. Just because a person dislikes what people do to themselves in beauty pageants does not mean you have to ban it and ruin a person's career. 3. You are saying that people going out of their way to make themselves attractive is a bad thing. It is actually a good thing because it encourages people to make themselves look more attractive and more likely to reproduce AKA EVOLUTION. The promotion of increasing your chances of reproducing is a good thing because it allows humans to have a greater chance of survival. 4. "Beauty contests must be banned because it lowers girls and woman's self-esteem and confidence when they don't win." According to this logic, anything that could lower your self-esteem through losing should be banned such as sports and the presidential election. That does not make any sense. This whole thing only shows that beauty pageants are not looked highly upon, but that does not mean that you should ban them. Banning them would deprive people of jobs and a career and the only reason for banning it that you don't like it. I have a solution for those who do not like it. DON'T WATCH IT