BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God most likely exists.

Alright, Lets land this gently. Occam's Razor: We're good on everything but one. You said that physics would be the most complicated thing when god is not the picture. While that is technically true, The God model has all of the complexity of physics and all of the complexity of god combined, Because physics still exit in the God Model. I agree that if G had tangible information, This conversation would go much differently. Observation: My problem with that reasoning is that the standard has to exclude other unlikely things. For instance, If you say that god is exempt from the rule because it would make a massive change and importance to human history, Then you have to include any hypothesis that does this. If fairies or Warlocks existed, Then that would have a huge effect on and important to us. So you would need a standard that doesn't open the door for just any argument to get in. Scientifically speaking, Your best bet is to show a need for agency. I think that's why the Teleological argument is so popular. On abstracts: It's true that I can abstract qualities about what I'm observing, But what I actually meant here was that a person cannot alter the image that they see or the way something smells/sounds/tastes etc. You can abstract things in your imagination after the fact, But the image itself cannot be changed. You're right that the image that hits your eyes keeps existing in the sense that the photons that bounced off your eyes are still out there. But that specific pattern is no longer arranged that way in reality. On physics. It would only be a contradiction if I said "Nothing exists until it's observed" The fact that something is the case and that fact that we know something is the case are two different things. So I can't know the dominoes will fall until I observe it, But it was true that they would have feel before I observed it regardless of if I was there or not. Omni: It would still be physics. It just wouldn't have the name physics and we wouldn't have math to measure it, But it would still be there. I'll give an example just to clear this up. Before math was invented, Cavemen were held down by gravity. They didn't know what gravity was, They didn't have math to calculate it, But it was still pulling them to the earth. This analogy basically sums up what I mean by this statement. It was a good and robust debate. We basically hashed the argument out in the first two statements and then vigorously argued for the points that were already structured. I don't get to be in a debate like this very often. Most people want to chuck their opponent's points straight out the window. I'll see you on the other side.
should abortion be/stay legal

the supreme court recognizes that the state constitution of alabama which states that the people of this state have the right to go through the abortion process as long as it is not after 3 weeks of the pregnancy, at the point when the government is seeking laws to protect this so called baby they are valuing and respecting the life of the baby. also when the government tells the people of the society that they cannot use there own common sense to seek a medical procedure that will better the quality of the persons life. at this point the government fails to be a democracy and a protecter of the peoples rights, but an oppressor of the people and since we are looking at the united states this form of government is not what we are trying to pursue. so now as thomas jefferson says in the preamble we the people have the obligation to take action against a form of government that is an oppressor to the people. this means that the people need to take a step to stop the government from having complete control and have rights for them self. abortion would be just one of these rights. in accordance to the murder argument the government of the united states has only so much power but not ultimate power in which they can enslave the people of the society.
should abortion be/stay legal

My opponent says the government has no right to tell people what they can/cannot do with others bodies. Doesn't the government say it is illegal to commit murder? They are controlling what someone does with anothers body with that law. The government should have the right to stop a practice that kills future children. The woman does have control of their body: she can not get pregnant. With so many birth control options available, she should solve the problem before she has to kill her baby. The big abortion question is when does life start, and I think it starts when the sperm and the egg combine and the cell is created.
should abortion be/stay legal

when abortion is legal the people of the society then have the right to voice them self and if needed rebel against the society. abortion allows the people of the society which in this case will be the united states the right to exercise there first amendment right through action. when opposing abortion you are advocating that the government has the right to tell the people what they can and cannot do with the peoples body. the fact that abortion is morally unacceptable or if it is acceptable does not hold weight with in this round.
should abortion be/stay legal

Since my opponent did not respond, I will just restate my previous arguments. 1) Abortion kills babies 2) Abortion is just an easy way out for an irresponsible woman who doesn't want to deal with having a child. 3) The government shouldn't cover up for your personal mistakes. 4) If you don't want to have a baby, use birth control. Don't kill them. It IS your body, your choice. Choose NOT to get pregnant.
should abortion be/stay legal

I'd first like to address the comment about "bettering the quality of life." In the first part of my opponent's argument, he said that abortions were permissible if within the first three weeks of pregnancy. In the first three weeks of pregnancy, the baby is less than half an inch long. There is no way of knowing if the baby has a health defect, or if the pregnancy and consequent birth will be a problem for the mother. Thus the only reason to have an abortion in that frame of time is because the woman doesn't want to have the responsibility of raising a child. Unfortunately, that is her own fault for having unprotected sex. If she didn't want a baby, she should have used birth control, or not had sex in the first place. It is not the obligation of the government to make up for a woman's bad decision. "Common sense" is not finding a quick way out of this problem, but not getting into the situation in the first place. The government may not have the right to tell people what to do, but that doesn't mean they should encourage women to kill their babies. She had her free agency, and she chose to have sex, which resulted in a pregnancy. What right does she have to go crying to the government to fix her problems? She would have to be in the same mindframe as the girls who sued McDonalds for "making them fat." Your body, your choice. Choose to stop eating junk, choose not to get pregnant.
should deaf people have a cocolia implant

I am going cut to the point. With your whole argument about cochlear implants having a removable outer piece, that doesn't change a thing. Its the pressure that is applied around the head in sports such as scuba diving and football which do the damage to the internal mechanisms, a fact which was shown in my sources. Kenny Walker, who was indeed deaf, did not have a cochlear implant, and so he was fine to play football. New hearing aids now filter out background noise and simulate the functions of a real ear (. http://www.sciencedaily.com...). This cancels out PRO's first argument. I would like to point out that although PRO has the burden of proof in this debate, he has not yet offered a single point that I have not refuted to support the resolution. I stand waiting for the next round. Sources: . http://sports.jrank.org... . http://www.sciencedaily.com...
should deaf people have a cocolia implant

A hearing aid user in a room will often find that the level of background noise - general shuffling and coughing - can be as loud as the speaker's voice, and amplified sound, such as television, can sound distant and unclear. This problem is usually accentuated by poor room acoustics. It is difficult for hearing people to appreciate the problem. The human ear seems to be capable of filtering out many unwanted sounds, but a hearing aid is unable to do this. A cochlear implant is very different from a hearing aid. Hearing aids amplify sounds so they may be detected by damaged ears. Cochlear implants bypass damaged portions of the ear and directly stimulate the auditory nerve. Signals generated by the implant are sent by way of the auditory nerve to the brain, which recognizes the signals as sound. Now this is not entirely true of what my opponent said "(you can't with a implant do scuba diving, playing high-intensity sports (eg football or rugby); that and they are bulky and is none removable" -The implant has two parts to it one internally and one that is on the outside of the head so if you don't want to listen to sound you remove the head piece. -also all the cochlear implants are adjustable. -Many of you who are fans of football particularly a man named Kenny walker he was a deaf man who played for the Denver broncos and I am pretty sure that is high intensity http://www.connevans.com... http://www.nidcd.nih.gov...
should deaf people have a cocolia implant

Quite understandable, I have done similar things and been screwed over for it. Alright, we will resume this debate with cochlea replacing cocolia. Now, he resolution clearly states that all deaf people should have cochlear implants. I beg to differ! I believe that deaf people should be allowed to use hearing aids. Using a hearing aid will offer the person with the exact same advantages PRO has offered for cochlear implantations, and then some. I'm going to go for an essay style as opposed to a contention style debate from now on, as my opponent seems to be doing as well. The problem with Cochlear implantations is that they are very restrictive. [1] A hearing aid is removable and adjustable, a cochlear implant is not. In addition, a Cochlear implantation stops the user from doing activities such as: - scuba diving - interacting with powerful magnets - playing high-intensity sports (eg football or rugby) - going near radar and radio sources (lots of painful static ensues) -going near neon lights (more painful static) Cochlear implants also offer the following disadvantages: -Risk of infection and vertigo -High price compared to hearing aids -Less control, no removability -One must wear a body processor which tends to get in the way -Sudden hearing loss due to program error or loss of signal -Low battery life -If (and when) device fails due to battery or other reason, it takes a while until surgery is available to fix the implant, laving the user deaf for a period of time My proposition is that deaf people should wear hearing aids. Hearing aid offer more advantages over cochlear implants: -Less safety concerns, as my opponent stated, because they can hear -More control, removability -Way cheaper -More access and flexibility for repairs, along with the fact that you can have a backup handy -Distinguishing low frequencies is easier -No change in user's body -Longer battery life, with added advantage of low battery indicator -Easier maintenance along with smaller size Sources: http://www.auditoryverbaltraining.com... http://www.signgenius.com... http://cochlearimplantguide.com... http://ezinearticles.com...
should deaf people have a cocolia implant

Dear big tree it is my mistake I did spell it wrong but how ever cochlear implants are not festivals and any one with a brain could understand what I meant now. My point as to why deaf people should be implanted with a cochlear implant is as I stated above there will be less safety concerns, and they will have a life much more successful . A cochlear implant is a small, complex electronic device that can help to provide a sense of sound to a person who is profoundly deaf or severely hard-of-hearing.
should deaf people have a cocolia implant

Before starting, I believe it is necessary to define the terms of the resolution. So I will. Should: Used to express obligation or duty [1] Deaf People: people with a severe auditory impairment [2] Cocolia: A festival held in the summer in Dorado, Puerto Rico [3] Implant: Something implanted, especially a surgically implanted tissue or device [4] I would now like to refute and clash with each of my opponent's arguments. "they will have less safety concerns, they will be able to hear cars coming, fire alarms, if someone ever broke into their home, a they will hear ambulances and so forth. .. ", "they will be able to fit in more with in the hearing community", "will get a better education they wont have to go to a deaf school were most of the schools do not teach well, when some of the school only have teachers who most likely will not be fluent (though there are some schools who have teachers that are fluent but not every school does)","they will not be discriminated against","and lastly they will be able to climb higher on the working scale to allow them to be more successful. " I really don't see how implanting a festival in somebody's head, whether they are deaf or not, would ever do any of these. "they will be able to hear music" Of course! There is a lot of music at the festival. But they could hear the music if the festival was not implanted in their heads as well, so I don't see why implantation is necessary. Now, on to my contentions: 1. It is impossible to implant a festival into somebody. How on Earth are you supposed to do that? The festival is bigger than one person, and people come and go from it regularly when it is in effect. Based on this alone CON should win, because you can't be obliged to do that which is impossible. 2. Implanting a festival in a deaf person will not help them. Even if it were possible, implanting a festival in a deaf person would not help them at all. Based on [5], festival implantation is not a cure or treatment for deafness. If I am wrong, I challenge PRO to find a reliable source which says otherwise. 3. Implanting a festival in someone would deprive others of the festival. If the festival was inside somebody, people would not be able to attend it. PRO seems to be all for depriving the innocent Puerto Rican children of their am! [1]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [5]. http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com...
should deaf people have a cocolia implant

I am in a asl class right now and we are currently having this debate...now I am against it but my teacher chose me to be on this side so I will do my best to win this debate... my reasons as to why they should be implanted: -they will have less safety concerns, they will be able to hear cars coming, fire alarms, if someone ever broke into their home, a they will hear ambulances and so forth... -they will be able to fit in more with in the hearing community -will get a better education they wont have to go to a deaf school were most of the schools do not teach well, when some of the school only have teachers who most likely will not be fluent (though there are some schools who have teachers that are fluent but not every school does) -they will be able to hear music -they will not be discriminated against -and lastly they will be able to climb higher on the working scale to allow them to be more successful.
Terrorism

Collin, Omar is seriously going to kill you for naming your account after him. Or at least sue you. Or yell nasty things at you. 1. Population is not a problem. As of now, the entire population of the world can fit inside the state of Texas. By the time the world is in desperate need of expansion, natural resources will deplete and the population will go back down naturally, or we will have expanded to another life-supporting body (i.e, Europa).2. The terrorist dies too.In 9/11, nearly 3,000 innocent people died to only 19 hijackers [http://www.theonlinerocket.com...]. If you ask me (or any other reasonable person), it would be much better if 3,000 people and 19 terrorists lived.3. Drama.Before I argue this worth a damn, I want my opponent to prove that-a. Terrorism creates dramab. Girls can't live without dramac. It matters if a bunch of dramaholic beliebers die.Until then, I do not see the weight this argument carries.4. Jobs for the Media Will Always Exist.My opponent made the claim that terrorism provides jobs for the media. However, we see that what's happening in the news has no effect on who is hired in the media. If it did, the amount of journalists who resided in Canada would amount to exactly zero.5. "Terrorism could Also Kill Future Evil Leaders".It could also kill the author of world peace, the next great olympic success story, or the future assassin of One Direction. The odds are all the same, but taking that gamble by randomly blowing up sh!t is not the way to go about kiling evil leaders.6. Terrorism Is Counterporductive. The terrorists of 9/11 managed to blow up a few buildings. In return, their nation fell, and all of their leaders were eventually killed. Along with that, America sealed its position as a hegemon. Terrorism accomplishes the opposite of what the offender wishes to accomplish.Conclusion:Voters, if you actually vote for OmarGoBoom, the terrorists literally win. I urge a Con vote.
There are no bad people in the world

Is respect really a choice? People respect others because they agree with what they say. For example, i'll respect a person who stands up for themselves because i believe that is right, but i won't respect someone i think is entirely wrong. Also, say you voted for one party and another party won. You may respect the party that won because you may think that "if the general public thinks it to be right then it must be'", you are then changing your mind about what you thought about the party that won and accepting them. So if following laws depends on respect (which i agree, it does), If the person does not respect the law and they do it anyway, they must think their reason is absolute. Even if someone did respect the law they might do it anyway because they think that doing it and dealing with the consequences is worth it. Or they could just be ignorant and not think about the law the entire time, while still thinking it's a good thing to do, and still maintaining their good intention.
There are no bad people in the world

Ok well what about internet trolling? The people who do it never have a reason besides "for the lols". A troll will cause annoyance for no gain what so ever, and sometimes even a loose something in the process. They can be considered bad people do to the fact they have no intent that involves personal gain. If you have no goal in mind then what happens to others in the process is meaningless, and so is your goal.
There are no bad people in the world

Well lets think outside of killing people. I know i've done some things that were wrong. Everyone has. But that does not make me a bad person. Everything i've ever done is because i thought it was right. So say i didn't do my homework when i was younger. I decided not to do it because i thought it was unimportant and i wanted to play. This action does not have bad intention and neither does any other decision made by any other person. There is no bad intention. But there is other people's opinions on other's intentions and they can decide if they think one's intentions are a bad thing or a good thing, but that is still only opinion. Just because others disagree with one person, that does not make them bad because their intentions are good and they are also working to make this world a better place, even if it's in small amounts or high. And even if a gang member killed a rival gang member. They did it because the rival was in the way or it would benefit them in some sort of way. If you were to be in someone else's mind, you would see everything that makes them decide what they do and why. You would see their reasoning and understand why they have made this decision. If you disagree with their decision that is because they are lacking knowledge that you have and if they were to fully understand that knowledge then they would agree with you and they wouldn't do what they planned. Theres no way on earth that someone will do something for absolutely no reason to support doing it.
North America Needs to go Green.

My peer in this has stated asked, " Do we have to wait until the day that oil runs out?" Here(no offense) (s)he projects a basic misunderstanding of economics. It is common knowledge that there is of course a limited supply of oil. As production(supply) dwindles, prices will inevitable raise due to sustained, even increased demand. However, one must keep in mind, that as prices raise, demand will lower as well. We are already seeing this in gasoline(gasoline, not crude oil) which was our top export for 2011 because of a massive surplus due to decreased demand, caused by, higher prices. http://www.usatoday.com... To undertake a 42 trillion dollar project, is foolish as the market will correct itself as people make or find cheaper better alternatives to carbon-based fuels. No government, nor group of governments need undertake this mission, especially considering the recession, as this would result in bankruptcy.
North America Needs to go Green.

To start: you said that going green was something that did not need to happen immediately. Well why not? The longer that we put little attention on renewable energy sources as a way to power our nations, the more we will pollute and destroy our planet. Do we have to wait until the day that oil runs out? If we were to begin converting our energy sources into renewable ones such as wind, solar and geothermal, we would be ahead of other world nations. This would include Russia, and China who still rely on fossil fuels and oil. This is a huge advantage, considering the stress between Iran and Israel that is present right now. We know that oil will run out, we know how to go green, and if we develop a plan and go into a bit of debt we can go green "today". Besides the financial downside, there is no bad aspect to a green way of life. *P. S. I left the character limit low because it is my first debate, and I didn't know who might accept it.
North America Needs to go Green.

Thank You for starting this, this is quite an interesting topic for my first debate on this website. Anyways, onto my argument. I will prove in this that "going green" is something you feel that should happen immediately. Therefore I will argue that it is not a task that need be completed immediately. I will base my position on the financial negatives to "going green" and why it is most certainly not needed in this sense. I will also base my position upon environmental reasons as well, as to why it is not necessary to immediately implement these plans. As the severity of impact of continued usage of carbon-based fuels has not been conclusively determined) Finally I will also base my response upon the limited supply of carbon-based fuels, and how it is not necessary to immediately go green. As even in this country we have untouched/unused resources. Thank you and I look forward to this debate. P.S.- I have to ask, why is the character count so short?(1000)