BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God has always been Eternal

Side note Statements abbreviated: (S); Point Statements: (P)Eternity-No beginning, no end, immortal. S1) Knowing of the King James Bible, this bible is used majority of the christian religion. This from what I see is about the christian God. S2) In my previous debate I shown evidence in the christian bible of verses saying one thing to another, showing flaws, and contradictions, of the christian bible: King James Version, also New King James Version. P1) To have eternity, there has to be a cause. Example what I mean of having a cause: To have a child, the cause would be reproduction, without a sperm of a man, and egg of a female, there could be no absolute way to cause a child. PA) So without no cause of the christian God to have eternity, that leaves the christian God with no eternity. P2) Also with no evidence of christianity God of even existing, only told by a book, clearly written by men. There no way my opponent can say christian god has eternity, without first proving, there is a god first. P3) Since my opponent cannot go off of topic about proving evidence of a God, then Proving his so call eternal, I can only see what my opponent evidence is. Since only a book said there is a god, also speaks of eternal, my opponent would have to show hard evidence. To convince us, that Something is eternal, since he can not break his own rules of going off topic by showing evidence of a book. P4) Since the christian bible contradicts itself, and has many flaws, proving of eternal, became really slim. I will make a quick small arguement about eternity, the question we must ask is How can something become eternal without a cause, also how can something create itself to be eternal, its impossiple. Unless my opponent can give proof, of a god without going off topic of showing eternal without evidence of a god. Meaning you can not prove of eternal god if you first have to prove a god exist, since my opponent stated no going off topic, he can not prove of a god for thats a whole different topic, meaning he can not prove of eternal of the god, he can not prove exist. Goodluck to my opponent
God Exists

Before I start, it should be stated that this resolution, or the title of the debate, is too narrow. I believe God exists, but I do not believe he can be rationalized, known through reason. Pro has argued that he can. I accepted the debate after reading his arguments, and I believed his arguments to be fallacious. So my position is not against the existence of God, but against Pro's actual argument. I hope that clears things up. My opponent must recapitulate his argument. It has completely failed. Moreover, it must be narrowed because it is too broad for anyone to adequately address. He has now resorted to attempting to poke holes into various scientific theories without proving his case. That would be fine if he were Con in this argument. He has a burden of proof, however, and has completely failed to meet that burden. Furthermore, Pro is claiming that if I cannot prove life was produced naturally, then he must be right that it was produced supernaturally. This is a clear-cut case of a false dilemma. He must prove his case, and I have already shown why his argument is invalid. Even if Pro proved that life was produced beyond nature, that would not necessitate the supernatural entity to be God. Again, his conclusion is "[T]he supernatural does indeed exist, and that supernatural entity is God." It should be pointed out that Pro has made a distinction between God and the supernatural, using God as a proper noun, which suggests that he means the God of the Christian Bible, or the God of Abraham. If he wanted this supernatural entity to mean anything that could potentially exist, then he should not have made the distinction and should have made a specific definition. I would say that only faith can lead someone to conclude God exists! I have already explained that there is no reason for me to actually refute every single argument Pro has made here because I have shown that each conclusion ends by assuming the supernatural to be God. Even if all his premises are true, his conclusions only assume God exists, and we are left in the exact same position we were before the debate: faith in God!
God Exists

Every argument made thus far, fails to actually prove God, specifically the God of the Christian Bible. It is through faith one comes to know God, not science! I do not even understand how any of these form a cogent argument. None of the conclusions follow from the premises. His conclusion the supernatural entity is God, for instance, does not follow in any way from the premises provided. Even if the entire argument worked, the final conclusion is a complete assumption. I don't even need to get into the blatant scientific misconceptions of biogenesis and abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This argument for objective morality is completely wrong, but again I don't need to go into depth on the specific reasons because his conclusion is still an assumption. This supreme law giver does no need to be God, especially the God of the Christian Bible. It could as easily be a deistic entity that cares nothing for human endeavors. There is no proof! The following argument referring to evolution and morality again makes no attempt to prove God. It only supposes that we have no reason to formulate any sort of ethical or moral code. I could think of reasons for us to construct moral codes: societal stability being one. Again, the next argument only supposes that we can make sense of morality by the grace of God. This is no proof! This is also a "God of the gaps" argument; that is, we need God in order to understand a specific phenomenon: morality. Well, what happens to your god when we find a way to explain morality? One possible way to explain morality is demonstrated in this video (http://www.youtube.com...). This next argument for intelligent design makes the same fatal mistake Pro has been making thus far: it assumes this intelligent designer is God. This is no proof of God! Moreover, comparing human language to DNA is unfounded. The two things are completely different. Of course, I would conclude that specific words found on a beach were written by a human because humans write words. We do not know if entities create DNA and therefore cannot make the conclusion they do. His final tangent on the complexity of DNA is completely unnecessary. So what if scientists understand very little about DNA? This is no proof of God! There is no reason here that this unsubstantiated, supernatural entity must be God. Sorry, you are misguided if you think you can understand God. You need only faith!
God Exists

If I say anything more, I'll just be repeating everything my opponent has failed to address. His arguments never proved God. If they could have possibly proved anything, that is, if they did not contain misused, absurd, or misunderstood premises, was that there was a supernatural force, which would not be the same as God, which when used as a proper noun, signifies the God of Abraham, not some supernatural force believed by the Hindus, or Buddhists. At best, he showed the possibility of an unknown supernatural force without ay definable characteristics. The only thing we are left with after this debate is faith in something, not proof, therefore, Pro failed! Proving God is different than believing he exists. We have faith in all sorts of things: family,friends, trust in our senses, etc.
God Exists

As readers can see, I never said Hindus believe in the God of the Bible. I said they perceive God as a supernatural entity, and anyone who knows the vedic concept of Knrishna, or Brahma, Vishnu and Siva knows this. The Buddist believe God is a supernatural "force," but a supernatural one non-the-less. In Zen Buddism, when they tap into this force, they believe they can defy gravity, levitate, etc. Muslims believe Allah is a supernatural entity. Con is way off tract, and he hasn't refuted any of my arguments. He didn't deny that the universe had a beginning; nor did he refute that life comes from life, which is what we find in the natural world. Unless he can prove that life somehow can come from non-life, he cannot prove his contention of abiogenesis. This theory I have refuted by pointing out how implausible it is given the difficulties faces in even getting the right proteins. So life only comes from life, never from non-living matter, hence there was always life. This means life predates the universe, and by that we have to conclude a supernatural entity existed before the unvierse. Now Con asks "how do you know this entity is God"? Well, what else could it be? I have also argued that an intelligent mind is the only known souce of information, so the information contained in our cells, DNA, and so forth must have come from an intelligent being at first. How do I know its God? Well, what else could it be? What are the options? Aliens? That only pushes the same qustion further. Where did the complex information in their genes come from? At some point we must reach that first sources of all the information. Con's argument is like a man finding a house in the desert and saying, well, it looks designed, like someone built it; but how do I know someone was human? Maybe E. T built it. I have also shown that our morality points to a higher source of law beyond ourselves. ..
God Exists

I said that "it is through faith one comes to know God, not science! " You are the one trying to prove God's existence using science and reason. I have shown your main argument to be invalid. I have shown over-and-over again that your other arguments do not matter because they are concluded by an assumption. Maybe I should not have called the title too narrow, but I was trying to make a distinction between your argument and the title of the debate. There is a clear difference. I guess it would be one more thing that should have been changed within your entire argument. Your argument needs to be recapitulated for several reasons. One, you have made a gross assumption that "all major religions recognize God as a supernatural entity. " This is untrue. Hindus do not believe in the God of the Bible, and they have no more or no less evidence for their gods than you for your God. Buddhism is the same: no belief in God. Second, you argue several separate issues, of which I did address and you never refuted my rebuttals. You never showed how we could get past the assumption and prove God's existence. Every single argument you made had the same mistake: concluded with an assumption that "the supernatural does indeed exist, and that supernatural entity is God. " This is not proof!
Love is the most selfish emotion to feel

I would like to firstly destroy this diversive case being proposed in favour of greed,secondly I would like to address a semantic error that is becoming fairly consistent in my opponent's debate. then counter all rebuttals made to my points. Greed, as my opponent so kindly defined for me, is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. To simplify the way I see greed I shall merely mention that it is an inordinate desire. Now, the definition of inordinate is "Unusually or disproportionately large; excessive." [1] and the definition of desire is "A strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen." [2] so it is fairly accurate to explain the feeling of greed itself as 'a disproportionately large strong feeling of wanting to attain something or for something to happen. Does this seem like a very selfish emotion to feel? To constantly want, constantly burn to have? I wouldn't think so. Especially since we defined selfish as being concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure and to feel as to have a sensation of. Is have a disproportionately large wanting for something either profitable or pleasurable to have a sensation of? I would say no, but I leave the decision up to you since this, I suppose, is pure opinion. On another note, there seems to be a semantic error that is becoming fairly consistent in my opponent's debate, this is regarding the use of the word feeling. It's fairly obvious to anyone who speaks english that feeling is merely the word feel being used in present tense context. As I said, to feel is simply to have a sensation of. If you happen to gain from being jealous or from being greedy it does not mean that feeling envy or feeling greed is selfish at all, in fact it is quite damaging to self. This is the semantic error. You mix feeling in its pure form with the benefits one gains from expressing it. One may gain sympathy from showing sadness and crying but the feeling they have is damaging, known to cause reduced metabolism and other effects. Finally, as for your rebuttals to my point, not one was valid to the slightest degree. Love as the pure feeling is nothing to do with the damage to self that one receives. If one is in an abusive relationship, whether they feel love or greed they will get beaten. However loving the person helps cope with the abuse better than being greedy for another relationship. As for your rebuttal to my point about greed it i simply is irrelevant to talk about what benefits one gains when acting on greed in a debating abou the benefits of the feeling itself. Sources: [1] https://www.google.co.uk... [2] https://www.google.co.uk...
Love is the most selfish emotion to feel

I want to make it VERY clear that to be be con you would be opposing that lov eis the most selfish emotion to FEEL. Not the most selfish to display or to express but to FEEL. (I type in capitals not to make you feel stupid but to make 100% clear). I prefer opponents age 15+ but if below I want very mature debates. Please nothing immature like love is beautiful, that's nothing to do with the debate. DEFINITIONS (If you disagree with any DO NOT GO CON): Love - an emotion of a strong affection and personal attachment. Selfish - Concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. (NOT the definition whereby it means LACK OF CONSIDERATION for others, this is not the definition to be used in debate). Emotion - A natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others. Feel - To have a sensation of.
Mixed schools should be banned

the fact that mixed schools have taken most of our education world should be considered. in today's world, mixed school take up at least 90% of the education sector. if they are still lasting and operating well, it means that they have not had any 'hitch hatch' that you have mentioned in a large scale and thus overall they haven't had a situation which has shut them. mixed schools have been shaping the lives of students for many years since their establishment. it is also seen that we have more mixed schools than single sexed schools. this should give us a hint that many parents do not like sending their students to such schools. as you did not reply to my previous argument, i shall leave my point like this for now.
Mixed schools should be banned

hello there. thanks for accepting my challenge. you have so far talked about the problems of girls so it seems you are more focused on boys schools than girls school. anyway, you said on point one that the relation of boys and girls will become poor, but do you realize that there will be no relation at all in a single sexed school. is this not worse. schools are supposed to train you for your future in the real world where boys and girls are together. you would rather have a poor relation which can b made better or more trustworthy than having none at all. eventually you are going to get a wife and in a mixed school, you are automatically taught how o cope up with each other. there are many mixed schools in the world but apparently i have not heard of a crisis in a mixed school which has been affected by 'girls crying all the time'. in point number 2 you said that opposite genders have different interests. you went ahead and gave an example of girls liking dolls. if you do know this, the that means you know that nature of girls. so why would you actually be teasing her for that. its natural and that is a FACT. moreover you talk about arguments between boys and girls being reduced but i hope you realize that students from the same gender do argue even. it wont stop. will it? let me add another point f my own before i finish. if students in a mixed school work as groups, then there is a higher chance of new points being raised and new ideas being thought. this is because students of 2 different overall perspectives will interact. a girl may have thought of something and using his 'privileges' he was born with, a boy can counter the idea or contribute to it. thanks
Mixed schools should be banned

Hi, I accept your challenge. I am a guy studying in a boy's school, I think that mixed schools have a few problems: 1. Girls like crying and if they keep crying all the time, the boys will be tired of hearing the cries and the relationship between the boys and the girls will be poor. 2. Boys and girls have different positions and interests. If the girls like dolls or barbies, some boys will tease them that they are childish. This will produce arguments between the boys and girls and they will not concentrate in their studies. 3. Boys and girls have very different characters and behaviors. Some students are tired of hearing the teacher scold students at their bad behaviors. This will make the classes more boring. Here are the advantages of single sex schools: 1. Boys and girls with communicate well with each other separately and avoid discrimination. 2. Arguments are reduced between boys and girls and the students can study in a quiet and peaceful environment. Thank you.
Mixed schools should be banned

I personally am a person who studies in a mixed school and really like it. There are various reasons for this. Firstly, i feel students in a mixed school interact better and that is where they mostly learn how to interact. Imagine you going to a mixed school in high school from a single sex school in primary. It will feel awkward, right? Similarly, imagine going from a single sexed school to face the world and pursue your ambitions. Basically what i am saying is that finishing education in a single sexed school to face your ambitions in the real world would prove really difficult as you will have to interact with different genders. If girls and boys are going to work together in offices, why not train them while they are young Moreover, students studying in single sex schools will feel as if they are under limits and might restrict them from showing their ideas to others. They will feel as if they have more restrictions. If they study in a single sexed school, they might find it difficult to talk in competitions that have their opposite gender as a feeling of inferiority and superiority may take over. Besides, if boys and girls wanted to date while studying in a single sexed school, they would simply meet after school or through modern technology such as Facebook and whats app
The United States should abolish plea bargains

I don't have time to construct a full rebuttal, so I ask my opponent can keep his short too for the sale of fairness. As proved in my contention 1, plea bargaining would still occur to a great degree underground. Therefore, people won't become more self reliant, since they can just continue what they were doing in the first place, with much less transparency. Also because of this, abolishing plea bargaining won't stop overcharging by prosecutors and causing people to run out of funds. Requirements for evidence for plea bargains is much less than that of trials, but trials still make plenty of false convictions. Mistakes will still be made. Innocents will still be convicted. A Due to this higher standard of proof and jury checks, trials would still take significantly longer, and this would still overload the system. In conclusion, aff doesn't solve for the harms of bargaining, since they will continue nontheless. If they do actually do their job, both the prison and judcial systems will still crash. For these reasons you must vote aff.
The United States should abolish plea bargains

Well I welcome this opportunity to debate on a issue that has such wide felt and harsh effects on so many people. Well my first argument for the erradication of the plea bargain would be that district attorneys would no longer prosecute crimes without evidence. See today the amount of charges filed is extremely high due to the ability of district attorneys to just throw as many charges at you as possible then let you bleed out all your money till you accept a lesser charge and they look good for catching a criminal and getting a guilty plea. Also it would help society to become less reliant upon government to solve their domestic and local issues due to the district attorney not being able to prosecute crimes in a timely fashion. This is a ultimate good and would allow parents to not worry about disciplining their children. Husbands not worry about their wife making up allegations and having him thrown in jail. Women would not be able to just regret sex and cry rape with no evidence. People would have to be responsible for themselves. Also it would lower the amount of people in prisons due to the needing of evidence for prosecution and due process rights being used as intended to only allow one year for trial. Thank you
The United States should abolish plea bargains

In any system, a problem doesn't matter if you can't do anything about it. Even if every single person in the judicial system only does what makes their job easier, that doesn't automatically mean that is possible to do anything about it. If pleas are abolished, they would still occur to a great degree underground, as we have seen in the UK, Alaska, Detroit, New Orleans, Bronx County and Ventura County. In all of the aforementioned examples, plea bargains just moved to other parts of the system, or the ban was ignored. You're making a rod for you're own back; abolishing pleas only makes it so that they are less transparent and more likely to be abused. If you thought the justice system was corrupt before, imagine when there is no real paper trail of the reality of the court cases. My opponent tries to counter this by saying that "plea bargains wouldn't go underground," yet he provides no evidence for this, and as Hume said, "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."Why would it only be the local courts required to show the burden of proof? Other courts clearly exist, and convict people just the same, meaning that the problem of excessively long trials still exists. And if you lower the burden of proof to higher courts, the reliabillity of them will be less.In rough conclusion, my opponent fails to sufficiently counter prison overcrowding nor the judicial system crash. Overall under pleas abolition, all the harms of them still occur to a greater degree than before. A third of the US government's branches would essentially be ground to an utter halt, rendering it near worthless, and making the legislative and executive branch unable to operate, due to the inability to put anything through courts. Nontheless, my opponent has failed to cite any sort of evidence whatsoever, and on this point alone neg should win on the onset. Yet even so, there are a litany of problems caused by the abolition of bargains. For these reasons you must vote neg.
The United States should abolish plea bargains

Well, let's be honest here. I have stood trial a few times in my life and what I have learned is that our system is full of union state and federal workers. These workers are only truly interested in doing enough to get by so they can collect their pension in 20 years. If you offer them a chance to see less people and have the steps be easier they will do it. Secondly this will just fall to the local courts to actually show the burden of proof. They are the ones who arraign you anyways. They will send less charges to prosecuted. Also, I do not believe that plea bargains would go under ground but I do think a sliding scale of time may be introduced