BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Life and the Universe were Created

My opponent has presented the argument that existence is an illusion yet illusions can only exist in comparison to reality. If an illusion is all there is, then it's not an illusion, it is reality. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases with time. It has been discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Two independent findings by the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z Supernova Research Team in 1998 confirm this. Therefore it cannot be stated that the universe is finite thus dispelling the notion "that the universe was at some point initiated by some ordered phenomenon". My opponent therefore has still failed to present a credible argument that life and the universe were created.
Life and the Universe were Created

My opponent has narrowed the focus of the argument to the origin of life, rather than of the Universe. I do not intend to contest the evolutionary history of life. I also do not intend to suggest any particular means by which the Universe was created, or suppose anything about what has happened since that creation, or even how long it has been since that creation (except that the amount of time has been finite). Note: My argument is further elaborated upon in the comments section, solidifying my reasoning as to why the Universe was necessarily created, and is finite in history and in future.
We can have as much morality without a God as we can have with one - SWITCH

It has been really rushed around my house. Now to the debate. First, we must ask ourselves what is morality? If morality is found within and determined by us, then a God would add no more morality than we had before, because morality comes from us, not God. I believe morality comes from within and is not influenced by God. I challenge my opponent to provide one moral action that could be done by a thiest and not an atheist. So I ask -What is morality? Where does it come from? This entire debate relys on there being a universal morality for all people. A "higher law. " There is no proof of a higher law. Humans all have different morals and values. So in order to answer the thesis, we must ask ourselves as to what standard we are defining a moral action by? Ourselves? A religious textbook? What? An atheist can be just as good as a theist. . "For instance, it is not well known that Bill Gates andWarren Buffett have no God beliefs. But they each individually made the two largest charitable donations in American history. " -. http://www.faithstreet.com...People can have all sorts of different morals. Even among members of the same church, there can be different versions of morality. There is no proven "higher law". In order for this debate to continue, we must decide what determines a moral action. Max Lamperouge
We can have as much morality without a God as we can have with one - SWITCH

I will be arguing that we cannot have as much morality without a God as we can have with one. Take whatever morality you think you can have without God. The addition of God does not detract from any of that morality. Therefore, we have either an equal or greater amount of morality if there is a God. God provides a reliable outside view to our moral disagreements. We humans argue about what's right, about what's not; who's to say who's right or not? And if someone can, or some group of people DO say, what's to keep them from changing their minds, or being replaced by new people with different ideas? To say that some group of people, even the whole population of earth, even, decide what is moral, is to say that ultimately, morals can change. On what grounds are those people then to determine morality? Only their whim. Moral relativism states that morality is whatever someone says it is for themselves. This is all we're left with. And the position is self-contradictory! Is moral relativism moral? It says that things are moral if someone says they are for themselves. So moral relativism is moral iff someone says it is for them. So they could just as easily say it wasn't, and it wouldn't be moral anymore. In other words, the final arbiter is not moral relativism, but the whim of the person. Which makes moral relativism useless. It provides no guidance; it adds no information. We start with the whim of the person, and an appeal to moral relativism just points them back to their whim. God provides a constant source of guidance, an addition of moral information. And He does so from a vantage point of infinite understanding, knowledge, and perspective, making the information He adds also the most important and useful of any moral information. An appeal to God can supersede all mistakes made in the mind of the individual, or the minds of the populous. And so, we need God to have the best morals, to have morals at all in any real sense.
We can have as much morality without a God as we can have with one - SWITCH

Please include a link to a debate which you believe demonstrates that you qualify for the debate. Please acknowledge that you understand and accept that we'll be doing a reversed debate after this one. If you accept this debate, we WILL do a second debate. It'll be like this: You'll pick either for or against. You'll indicate your choice in your application comment, along with your link. I'll check out your debate and accept your request. You'll accept the debate as CON, but you'll argue either for or against the proposition, whichever you selected. Say you pick "for. " So you'll argue that the proposition is true, that we can have morality without God, and I'll argue against it Then we'll do another debate in which we'll argue the other way around. I'll argue that we can have morality without God, and you'll argue against it.
It would be beneficial to the nation (USA) to remove the electoral college system.

Do you understand basic democracy? I do not wish to establish a republic, which is what you are thinking. I am thinking of pure democracy. My vote is equal to your vote, therefor our state has no voice. Only the people have the power- true popular sovereignty. You home state should not have a say. No state should have a stay. The constitution was not established to protect the state from the federal government, but the people from the federal government. Thanks
It would be beneficial to the nation (USA) to remove the electoral college system.

To begin, I'd like to state that constitutionality is not an issue when we talk about congress passing a bill. That is a controversial statement to say the least! But allow me to explain. The only branch that decides constitutionality is the judicial branch. If congress got together and abolished the electoral college, and the president vetoes the bill. In this instance, congress would draft the amendment, the president would look at the amendment, and the states would vote and do all of their things. The supreme court is not involved in this process. If the amendment ratifies, then it becomes constitutional, and therefore it cannot possibly be unconstitutional if it is part of the constitution. Also, the 12th amendment was not a part of the bill of rights. Any amendment can be changed by another amendment. This is clearly laid out in the constitution. Just look at the prohibition amendment, which was later invalidated by another amendment. If something is stated in the constitution, it can be changed. Things can be added, and things can be removed. The constitution protects our basic rights. If an American rights is putting our own representative in power, then pecan pie is another party voting for us? The person you elect into the electoral college is not required to vote for the party you voted him in to vote for. If you vote a republican representative, he is not required to vote republican. Also, the electoral college allows for the loser to win. In fact, this has happened recently. Al Gore v. Bush for the presidency. Gore had won the popular vote in America, but because of the electoral college, he lost. Is this a democratic government? Is it even a republican form of government? No, it's not. Because of the electoral college, our votes are virtually worthless. Getting rid of a government system is not unconstitutional if it uses the constitution to get rid of it. http://www.law.cornell.edu... Ammenment 12 is after all an amendment, which can easily be changed. This would not be the first time an amendment was changed by another amendment. Thanks
Riddle of Epicuris

Ok, I'll go through each question then make my own mini-case. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent." My Response: First off, my opponent is trying to understand the mind of God, which is impossible. Thats a simple observation. However, looking at this specific line, of course God can eradicate evil. What better way to eradicate evil then by his own creations. We are they way he eradicates evil. Take 9/11 for instance. The firefighters that went into the buildings were the "good" trying to eradicate the evil made. They saved lives, while risking their own. Thats the greatest goodness that can be done. So essentially, God eradicates evil by the goodness done by his creations. There will always be a balance, evil will be done, but the good ppl on earth will be there is eradicate it. "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." My Response: Eradicating evil totally is just as malevolent. Good without evil is no goodness at all. Therefore, goodness becomes evilness to itself. A world without evil, needs no good. It's a paradox. Simple, eradicating evil totally is malevolent. "Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?" My Response: Evil is not a substance as my opponent makes it seem. Evil is just the absence of good. Just like darkness is the absence of light. Evil automatically comes with good. As i have said before, its a balance, necessary for the very soul of goodness. "Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" My Response: This is assuming that the first 3 could not be answered. however, I'll respond to it anyway. This statement is trying to understand the very nature of God's will. Like St. Augustine portrayed: It's like trying to take all the water from the sea. It's impossible to do.
Riddle of Epicuris

I want to see a christian refute the Riddle of Epicuris, i have made this debate only 1 round...ok here is the riddle Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Riggs Debate

It is the role of the courts to decide matters before them. Courts do not have the power to be parental rather they do in fact have a legal obligation to try and achieve a just outcome. Therefore in the interest of justice the courts are entitled to render a judgment. When there is no statute in place to guide the courts, it is within the courts discretion to make a judgment in the interest of justice. The decision of this case itself would set the precedent for other cases who may choose to follow their lead or overrule this decision. Also, even though there are no statutes prior to this case, the act of statues is influenced by common law, which means that you can"t benefit from your own crime. Under the civil law developed from the general principles of natural law, someone cannot take property by inheritance or will from an ancestor who he has murdered. In constructing a law, it may not be possible to include every scenario that may exist, and judges therefore prefer to decide only the issues of the case at hand. The central issue is not whether Palmer would be punished twice, it is whether a person should be allowed to profit from their crime. A will serves as a contract; under the legal theory of illegality a contract is voidable if formed through illegal means. Although the will was not formed legally, the triggering action in a will is death. If this triggering is obtained through illegal means then the contract should be voidable because it was achieved through an illegal method. Elmer would also not be subjected to double jeopardy because this theory applies only to criminal punishment. Double Jeopardy would apply if Elmer was charged for another criminal offense with the same substantive issues as his capital punishment case, however since this is a civil case the civil outcome is substantially different from any criminal punishment. Although the issues are the same the judgment in the civil case achieves an entirely different outcome and if unresolved would allow Elmer to profit form his crime. If the estate were left delinquent while Elmer is in jail then the estate would essentially go to waste. Courts generally try to avoid waste so it would therefore make more sense that the plaintiffs should acquire the estate. The whole point of Elmer getting the estate would be to enjoy it so if he receives the estate wouldn"t he be essentially enjoying it? If we give Elmer the estate it would make a huge difference because that means he would definitely be profiting off of his own crime and we"ve already established that someone should not be able to profit off of his or her own crime. Are we saying that someone who commits a crime so brutal such as murder should be able to inherit property off of the person they've killed? To me that seems really unfair to the person that was killed. Mr. Palmer deserves justice in this case, and the just would be not to let Elmer inherit the estates
Against Democracy in countries with a majority of uneducated citizens

You state that considering the U.S. is irrelevant to the situation and you decide to steer the debate towards 3rd world countries. You only make one argument which is the case that the "uneducated" is being bribed by the government officials to elect for a certain representative and the subsequent paragraphs are examples to your thesis. You have the BOP to demonstrate to us that democracy does not work work in 3rd world countries. If you fail to support and demonstrate why 3rd world countries cannot hold democracy then I win by the fact that you cannot provide supporting evidence for your thesis. My only job here is to successfully refute your claims and this is why I used the United States as an example. You say that the U.S. is irrelevant to this case, which is wrong. In R,1 I demonstrated to you that the opposite was also in fact, impossible to withhold 100%. I will summarize my arguments in R1 again. 1) To be educated means to have a high literacy rate. 2) U.S. has one of the highest literacy rates in the world. 3) Yet, the U.S. has a corrupt government. Examples are SOPA, earmarks ons bills, net netrality acts,etc The fact that even with high education standards, we still have corruption in our government, how do you justify this fact based on your argument of being educated? The reason why I steered the debate towards diversity issues was because of the belief that having opposing views is what's causing this "corruption." It's each party striving for their own political agendas that causes conflicts, not if one is educated or not. Additionally, not one person in is world knows everything. There are just too much to take in in our lifetime. This is why we have a government, to have people be experts in a certain field. What I am trying to show is that even if every person in the world is smart, there will always be that one topic that we would not know the answer to. From this, we require others who are experts in the field to educate us on this topic.
Against Democracy in countries with a majority of uneducated citizens

I believe that referring to the US is irrelevant here as I'm sure we can both agree that their average "literacy" levels are of what you would expect in a first world country. In my argument I am referring to third world countries and only third world countries. Predominantly in these countries average literacy levels are worrying low. For this reason am I in the strong opinion that during election time, parties go around to these mostly poverty stricken people and easily manipulate them and lie to them and make false promises, etc, etc; so that come election day the "uneducated" do not make a wise decision. I am saying that votes are decided by people who do not know any basic facts about the country, such as it's economic performance, party's policies, plans for economic and business growth, and so on. They hold onto false beliefs that are fed to them and most of the time the campaigning parties in their areas give them free clothes and food parcels which are like gold dust to them. I agree that there are always diverse views among common people, but if everyone knew and was "educated" on the fact that the current government (South Africa for example) is constantly breaking the national constitution rules and comitting acts of corruption to such awfully embarrassing heights, then would they still vote for them?
Against Democracy in countries with a majority of uneducated citizens

"Democracy in a country with a majority population of uneducated and poverty stricken citizens whereby government is voted in by the people is not successful because the majority who vote for a party are at high risk to manipulation." 1)You don't define what constitutes a population to be "educated." For the example that I will give, I will define a population to be "educated" when the general population has a literacy rate of 99% 2) So, even if your statement is true, then the opposite will be too which is that the country with a majority of the population is educated whereby government is voted in by the people is successful because the majority who vote for a party are at a low risk of manipulation. Let's take the United States as an example. We have a 99% literacy rate so under your statement we shouldn't be manipulated that easily, correct? If this is the case, then can you explain to me why we are all for SOPA, net neutrality, and why was Edward Snowden considered a whistleblower if this is what the citizens wanted? "Government currently in power therefore, through wrongful use of public funds and resources, can harm the country's GDP and economic performance due." Again, this is happening in America everyday through earmarks added onto proposed bills before passing through senate and house. Here's an example: (http://www.nytimes.com...) "whereby an educated person or reasonably informed person would know the current party in power is not leading to expected standards and thus would vote for an opposition party. " The problem with this statement is that you're not considering the diverse views each person hold. You can have the two smartest people in the world running with opposing views and there will ALWAYS be disagreement on topics. Moreover assuming we only allowed the smartest population of the US to vote (i.e. those who have an IQ of 140 or higher im just using it as an arbitrary example.) That US population will differ in their political stance and views. Just look at the consensus on defense funding. (http://www.politifact.com...) Here is a link of president's campaign promises and the percentage that they kept through their term (enter any president you want.) As one can see there is not even ONE president that has kept 100% of the promises that he made during his campaign. Why? it's because of the reason state earlier. "Nelson Mandela said that education is man's best weapon and this point seems to be at the crux of the issue. " I agree with Mandela's stress on the importance of education. However, for this debate, education isn't the crux of the issue. It's diversity that's causing us to disagree over topics. You realize that the US votes work through the electoral college and not through popular votes, right? This is important to know considering that the people do NOT directly elect which bills get passed or which president for the next term.
Against Democracy in countries with a majority of uneducated citizens

Democracy in a country with a majority population of uneducated and poverty stricken citizens whereby government is voted in by the people is not successful because the majority who vote for a party are at high risk to manipulation. Government currently in power therefore, through wrongful use of public funds and resources, can harm the country's GDP and economic performance due to corruption and using taxpayer funds to enhance their position in power and misinforming the masses that they are doing a good enough job whereby an educated person or reasonably informed person would know the current party in power is not leading to expected standards and thus would vote for an opposition party. Examples are Zimbabwe and more recently South Africa. Nelson Mandela said that education is man's best weapon and this point seems to be at the crux of the issue. I understand that their may be policies other than democracy that would be even more unsuccessful but I firmly believe that democracy doesn't work in these countries.
vi_spex could never beat me in a debate, with the exception of me resulltinf to forfeiture

My opponent chooses to lie instead of argue with me. I posted alls arguments as seen in the debate, which YOU were supposed to do. Even if I didn't post an argument, you were supposed to do so, as I clarified in Round 1. I have introduced actual arguments and sources while my opponent lacks it. Thus, I can conclude that vi_spex will NEVER win a debate against me. I have also rebutted all of what seems to be false claims and bare assertions. Con has failed over and over to come up with an argument and refute mine. I should win every point: Conduct-Pro. vi_spex didn't come up with even a half decent argument like he was supposed to. He basically forfeithe this debate. S/G: Pro. Yes I had a grammar error on the title, but I make less grammar mistakes than Con in general. Especially considering Con cannot capitalize his "I's". Arguments: Pro. Read everything that I said above. Sources: I am the only one to provide sources. This should result in a clear cut 7-0.
vi_spex could never beat me in a debate, with the exception of me resulltinf to forfeiture

My opponent makes a false assertion that I don't have an argument and that I still cannot present one. "man sry i cant take you seriusly.. you dont have an argument, and you never did, and you still cant present one now"Can you please *prove* this? I just posted an argument. Remember, I made a rule that required the BoP to be passed on to you, and yet you don't come up with a single argument, so I believe this is quite the contrary my friend. Con tells me that I cannot present an argument, even though he cannot come up with rules and this is not his debate. I shall extend my argumentI have proven with sources that vi_spex hasn't beaten me in a debate so far, even though he asserts that he always did. I made an argument supporting that at this rate, vi_spex could never beat me in a debate, since he always makes bare assertions rather than using actual logic or reasoning. The logic he ever uses is his own made-up gibberish. Look at my wins and tell me this is not true. And to add insult to injury, getting off topic definitely hurts his reputation as a debater. My opponent has one last chance of coming up with an argument and properly refuting my points, although, according to my sources and argument, he is never going to do said actions. I rest my case.