BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Does Not Exist

I accept, a little background information on my beliefs.. I am a protestant Christian who prescribes to the idea of 'Sola Scriptura'.. Meaning, my beliefs are grounded only in the Bible according to the original manuscripts and not later Church additions/doctrines that are ascribed to Catholicism and other less specific denominations/sects.Since my opponent did not provide any official structure into how this debate will operate, I will provide my own only if my opponent agrees, I will continue in this structure unless my opponent deems otherwise. According to this format, my opponent will be responsible for providing a negative case for the existence of the Christian God and conversely, I will provide a positive case. it will be both our responsibility to show why it is more evidently clear that this God does/does not exist. Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2- Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals) Round 3- Rebuttal Period Round 4- Final Rebuttals/Concluding RemarksI am very excited to participate in this debate and to kick it off, I will give the full Christian conception of God according to the Westminster Confession: I. There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions;[7] immutable,[8]immense,[9] eternal,[10] incomprehensible,[11] almighty,[12] most wise,[13] most holy,[14] most free,[15] most absolute;[16] working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,[17] for His own glory;[18] most loving,[19] gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;[20] the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;[21] and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments,[22] hating all sin,[23] and who will by no means clear the guilty.[24] II. God has all life,[25] glory,[26] goodness,[27] blessedness,[28] in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made,[29] nor deriving any glory from them,[30] but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;[31] and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases.[32] In His sight all things are open and manifest,[33] His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,[34] so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.[35] He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.[36] To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.[37] III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Ghost.[38] The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; [39] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. [40]
Smartphone use yields negative results for intellectual evolution

In defense of my statement, "our addiction and mass unhealthy consumption of Internet based software that does not add to our growth" I would have the contender reference the definition of evolution that was set forth in the beginning of Round 2. Evolution is the process of formation or growth, the statement that the Internet based software does not add to our intellectual growth holds valid. Intellectual evolution is dependent on growth, a lapse in growth leads to a lapse in adaptation, leading to a lapse in the evolutionary process. The contender has no valid argument against the statement nor its validity to the argument. R1: Research on Spatial Memory, also research on generation effect. Both research on spatial memory improving brain function which is used through remembering where you are and have been, not through GPS. THe generation effect deals specifically with smartphones and the effects of reliance on them. "With the internet readily available to almost everyone, we can easily find solutions to questions online and take information that the internet supplies rather than analyzing topics and critically thinking on our own." [1]R2: Generation effect and its ties to Smartphones as well as our intellect. The “generation effect” refers to the discovery that we better understand and remember answers we have generated for ourselves in comparison to those answers we have simply read. [2] Smartphones also encourage cheating on exams and tests. Almost 65% of polled teens said they had heard or seen classmates use cell phones to cheat at exams. [3] "Almost half of all surveyed teens (46%) don´t consider sending answers as cheating, but rather claim this is helping friends in need." [3] R3: Smartphones can be used to improve brain function, at the expense of other functions of the brain, in turn, hindering us from deep thinking, critical thinking, and analysis.The contendar needs to use Smartphones as increasing intellectual evolution, not Tablets or laptops, the fourth piece of research is not applicable to the debate topic. [1] https://www.nshss.org...;[2] http://www.medicaldaily.com... [3] http://www.phonearena.com...
Smartphone use yields negative results for intellectual evolution

First, my opponent states that “our addiction and mass unhealthy consumption of internet based software that does not add to our growth”. I would like to point out that the topic specifically states that, in order for pro to win, he must prove that smartphone use yields negative, not neutral, results. R1: Basic cellular phones improve communication, whereas smartphones promote habitual 'quick reward' behaviors. This argument was not sufficiently supported by my opponent as he provided no research regarding an increase in ‘quick reward’ behaviors. The provided evidence involves spatial reasoning but is not linked back to the initial contention and is not proven to be relevant. R2: The increased easy access information leads to a generation effect which stifles long term intellectual growth. Again, I am unclear as to the relevance of the information provided and its relationship to this contention. My opponent needs to sufficiently explain the connection between the evidence and the contention. R3: Smartphones can be used to improve brain function, at the expense of other functions of the brain, in turn, hindering us from deep thinking, critical thinking, and analysis. My opponent argues that smartphones are detrimental to our development in areas such as deep thinking, critical thinking, and analysis. As support for his argument, he states that reading, an activity that “enhances thinking and engages the imagination”, has declined in recent years. While I do not dispute the fact that reading has experienced a steep decline, there is no direct connection between the decline in reading and the rise of smartphones. In fact, TV is the most likely factor contributing to this decline, not smartphones [2]. Additionally, the use of smartphones has been shown to increase critical thinking skills when used in an appropriate way. A study comparing different classes of high school students showed that the students who used smartphones in the classroom performed higher on critical thinking tests than their peers who did not use smartphones [3]. Similar results can be found in younger children, as teachers use devices such as iPads to help students connect to a book by introducing various forms of media [4]. [1] http://unesdoc.unesco.org... [2] http://www.npr.org... [3] http://pubs.sciepub.com... [4] http://www.socialstudies.org...
Abortion is wrong even if the pregnancy is ectopic!!!

Agreed. Let us beginFirst off, everyone knows the meaning of abortion so we don't need to go over that. Despite the fact that I am a pro-lifer who believes life begins at conception, there are some unfortunate cases in which abortion is the safest answer if the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk and today of course we will be focusing on ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy is when the embryo develops outside the uterus in in the fallopian tubes- other places are the ovaries, the cervix or the abdomen but the fallian tubes are the most common. The fallipian tubes are not designed to carry a baby and are very narrow, thus when the embryo gets too big, the tube will eventually burst which results in a huge amount of blood loss and is life threatening for the woman. Plus, it is a VERY painful process. The baby has no chance of surviving so what is the point in letting the woman go through all that pain for no reason? I know there have been some cases of ectopic babies who survived but these are in the other places ectopic pregnancies can occur like I said, the ovary/cervix/abdomen.In conclusion, it is foolish and irrational to claim that ecotopic abortion is just as wrong as any other reason for abortion. It is to save the mother's life- not for achieving her own selfish desires or to make her child free so she has no worries at all. The loss of the child is just an unfortunate side affect.
You are not legal bound to your unborn fetus.

Are you usually this uninformed? This is not an insult. It's an observation. "I affirm the argument that you are not LEGALLY bound to your unborn fetus; not that you are morally obligated to give birth, morals is not the argument here." According to most state laws you are indeed legally bound to your unborn fetus by the third trimester. "Laws should never affect the right to your body and any decisions that may concern it." I thought you weren't arguing morality? It amuses me greatly on how quickly you're able to contradict yourself. When you're dealing with an unborn fetus it is another entity. You are responsible for the voluntary decisions you make in life. You have no right to infringe on the rights of others whether it is inside your womb or on the outside. Your argument isn't in pursuit of justice but is instead geared toward convenience. What significant difference is there between an unborn fetus about to be born in seconds and a baby that was just born? "You have a responsibility to your heath and well being before anyone or anything else." You're right. How silly of me to think otherwise. I should purchase some slaves for my own well being. You wouldn't mind right? After all, I have a responsibility to my health and well being before anyone or anything else. "Laws cannot infringe upon your right to your body." Yes, they can. A government can simply make such a law and enforce it. I think you might want to seriously consider brushing up on definitions before agreeing to another debate. "Giving up your time and bodily resources is your decision." That's an empty statement. By the definition of free will, you're able to do whatever you please. But on the other hand, there are consequences for everything you do. "Some people may argue that you are required morally to give life to the child, but that is there individual values." Now you're a regular comedian. You got me to laugh anyway. You do realize that every opinion is an individual's values right? No, of course you didn't. You're too fond of making incredibly empty statements. "Everyone will see a fetus' rights differently and some believe they do not have any at all." That's fascinating. I wonder when you're going to say something with a point. Then, I would be truly impressed! "That is each person's own opinion." My opinion is that my rights triumph over everyone else's, and therefore I should kill whomever I see fit. There's no problem because it's my opinion. Am I right or am I right? "Morals do not have a place in law." Morals in laws is a bogus concept man! Down with the oppressive establishment! Don't mind the man who breaks into your house and steals all your stuff. Morals shouldn't be in laws. Laws should just be whatever for the fun of it. "Yeah..." I think this perfectly sums up that you don't have the slightest clue about what's going on.
You are not legal bound to your unborn fetus.

Hello... this is my first debate. Here it goes. I affirm the argument that you are not LEGALLY bound to your unborn fetus; not that you are morally obligated to give birth, morals is not the argument here. Laws should never affect the right to your body and any decisions that may concern it. You have a responsibility to your heath and well being before anyone or anything else. Laws cannot infringe upon your right to your body. Giving up your time and bodily resources is your decision. Some people may argue that you are required morally to give life to the child, but that is there individual values. Everyone will see a fetus' rights differently and some believe they do not have any at all. That is each person's own opinion. Morals do not have a place in law. Yeah...
Islam Religion Should Be Condemned

Pro still never provided any reason for why Islam the religion--not sharia law, not Islamic republics--should be condemned. Also, I was unaware that I needed to cite the bible. Can't people just look it up? https://www.biblegateway.com... Use this link for my bible quotes. It stands that even if the violations do not receive the death penalty in some cases, the laws are still ridiculous. Why should a woman be put to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Also, I will cite the same link Pro did, because everyone should take a look at some more ridiculous bible laws, that don't deserve condemnation from Pro. https://en.wikipedia.org... This is just like the religion Islam you claim should be condemned. You are special pleading. I reject the claim that Islam the religion should be condemned, because the reasons Pro provided for condemnation of Islam are indistinguishable from the reasons Pro claims are acceptable with Christianity. The reason Pro has not met his burden of proof is that Pro has failed to provide evidence for why Islam, the religion in total, is worthy of condemnation, and instead has made multiple attempts to condemn sharia law and Islamic republic states. Islam the religion and Islamic republic states are not reciprocal. Neither are Islam and governments endorsing sharia law. Islam the religion can exist without governments endorsing sharia law and Islamic republic states, therefore condemning Islam does not necessitate condemning governments who endorse sharia law or Islamic republic states. I know Con is supposed to forfeit this round, but I needed to cite the bible, and to reiterate that the resolution does not contain "Islamic republic states" or "governments endorsing sharia law" should be condemned. Pro has used special pleading to excuse Christianity of its obvious sharia law-like rules, and inconsistently condemn Islam for the same thing. If we condemn or sentence Islam to a punishment for unreasonableness, there is a slippery slope to anti freedom of religion; the freedom to believe in unreasonableness without condemnation should be given to all religions.
Islam Religion Should Be Condemned

Islam agency @MagicAintReal seems to be spreading propaganda or reading comprehension skill is too weak. I believe all other readers here understand if was assigning agency to Islam. Qur'an vs Bible The sentences picked from the bible seem to be heavily prejudiced. Let's look at the first one: "Eating any animal which walks on all fours and has paws (11:27)" We concentrate on the number, 11:27 (http://biblehub.com...). Look at the result, perhaps we use the New International Version. Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. It is also worth mentioning that those are unreferenced, thus, cannot be trusted. According to Wikipedia, it is not punishable by death: https://en.wikipedia.org... Islam is the past, starting from now is different I strongly disagree against this and Sharia Laws still exist in Islamic Republic states. Most Sharia Laws are unreasonable, so extinction of those laws would be great since in these modern days we already have standard crime laws (plus those International Laws). Christian on the other hand is different, the laws are not used in these days, they are extinct. Otherwise, name me out a Christian country that still uses the laws. Existence of Sharia Laws are the national leaders stupidity Again, I strongly disagree this and I have reasoned: those Sharia Laws are Islam beliefs. And for you, you would be condemning all Islamic Republic countries, that would be a poll: Should we condemn Islam religion or all Islamic Republic states. Unfortunately, I have just rebuked above (multiple times).
Islam Religion Should Be Condemned

So, I'm assuming Pro agrees with me that he was in fact assigning agency to Islam, though he claimed earlier in the debate that he did not; if I am misrepresenting Pro, please let me know. Under "Islam agency" Pro wrote "The laws are their Islamic beliefs since they were referenced through the Qur'an, thus, condemnation against Islam religion itself is more accurate." Ok so I was waiting for the Q word (Qur'an) to pop up, because I had mentioned the bible atrocities, and I figured that was your opportunity to dig on in, but here it is. If you think condemnation of Islam because of the Qur'an is more accurate than condemnation of Judaism/Christianity because of the bible, you haven't read the bible. Straight from the bible Samuel 1 15:3--God's cool with genocide Psalms 135:8 & 136:10--God is commended for committing infanticide These next laws in Leviticus are punishable by death " Eating any animal which walks on all fours and has paws (11:27) " Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10) " Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) " Cross-breeding animals (19:19) " Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23) " Trimming your beard (19:27) " Getting tattoos (19:28) " Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32) " Mistreating foreigners " "the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born" (19:33-34) " Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36) " Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14) " Selling land permanently (25:23) Does this deserve condemnation too? Pro then says per my comment of Muslims being persecuted by christian members of the Indonesian government-- "If you realised, that was in the past. His president position ended in 1998. If I were to condemn the past, I would have condemn Adolf Hitler." Yeah I did realise, intentionally spelled with an s instead of a z, it was in the past because it didn't happen now and the future hasn't occurred, so I'm left with the one option...Ok so if you don't condemn the past, then you can't condemn Islam's unreasonableness, because by definition it has happened in the past, starting now...and now... Also I am going to end this round with a quote from Pro that I would like to use to illustrate a point. Pro stated "But let me be clear, even if [persecution by Christians of other religions] happens now, I would not condemn Christianity because that is not Christian's belief but the stupid national leader's belief." EXACTLY. A stupid national leader's beliefs should not affect our condemnation of that religion. Let me take your quote and just change Christianity to Islam. But let me be clear, even if that happens now, I would not condemn Islam because that is not Islam's belief but the stupid national leader's belief. If you can't exercise that same logic for Islam, you are special pleading yet again. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Islam Religion Should Be Condemned

Islam agency The laws are their Islamic beliefs since they were referenced through the Qur'an, thus, condemnation against Islam religion itself is more accurate. Islam Persecution If you realised, that was in the past. His president position ended in 1998. If I were to condemn the past, I would have condemn Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Japan, etc. But let me be clear, even if that happens now, I would not condemn Christianity because that is not Christian's belief but the stupid national leader's belief. Vatican City excuses in this I have excused the holy country of Christian because it is rightful for them to defend Christians since the country is dedicated for Christians. I do not excuse Indonesia because even though Indonesia has the largest Muslim population country, it is not the main country of Islam since it has 6 official religions, in other words, it is a mixed religion country. Another reason to excuse it from being the main country of Islam because the origin of Islam is from those Middle East areas: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iran, etc. My biases against Islam As mentioned, the Islam laws are also beliefs as referenced from the Koran, so, it cannot be compared to other specific Christian/Judaism countries since those are national laws.
Islam Religion Should Be Condemned

Your resolution gives agency to Islam, because your resolution is not "unreasonable laws should be condemned"...your resolution isn't even "religions with unreasonable laws should be condemned"...your resolution isn't even "Sharia law should be condemned"...No, no, no....You boldly and specific claim Islam should be condemned. Usually things are condemned for something they have done. Agents typically do things. If Islam isn't the agent of unreasonable laws, then why should we be condemning it? You say "Persecution against Christian is still like any other Islamic Republic countries." How about an Islamic country whose christian members of the government persecuted Muslims. Look up President Suharto of Indonesia. You will probably specially plead this case of Christians persecuting Muslims and say it's not as a frequent as Islamic persecutions of Christians, or because it wasn't persecution under sharia law it's not as bad, or somehow when Islam persecutes it's worse than when Christianity persecutes. You still have to deal with the fact that the very thing you hate about Islam is something to be hated about most religions, even Christianity, which is why I disagree with the resolution that Islam should be condemned, because the resolution is way too exclusionary. https://en.wikipedia.org... Now, proving that other religions are unreasonable does not reject the resolution, I realize that, but it does illustrate the implication of the resolution that these atrocities are specific to Islam. Again, you didn't say "religions with unreasonable laws" should be condemned, so your resolution seems to fall under the logical fallacy of special pleading. If I may illustrate the fallacy. Thee deep structure of your position is though Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have unreasonable laws and have or had governments which persecute other religions' people because of these laws, only Islam should be condemned. Earlier in the debate you said, "[Christianity does] not have [unreasonable laws] except for the main (1): Vatican City" then later you say "Again, my "unreasonableness of Christian", nothing else other than the freedom of religion in the main Christian country, Vatican City." This is special pleading again. Why does being the main country of a religion excuse it from being unreasonable. Indonesia is the world's largest population of Muslims and doesn't have a government that suppresses freedom of religion like Vatican City. So in this case, Islam shouldn't be condemned, because it clearly lead to a more reasonable government than that of Vatican City. Also, any atrocities committed by Indonesia should be excused per your argument that it is the main country of that religion. You also say, "And I disagree Islam to be a peaceful religion, it is a religion that has the largest number of terrorism groups." Research Islamic terrorist groups and look at their motivations. Most of them are political/economical.