BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exist, and belief in His existence is rationally justified.

The First Argument I would like to bring up that points to a Intelligent Mind is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This argument has 3 premises, and following the rules of logic, if the first two are true then the conclusion stands. For example: 1. ) All man are mortal 2. ) Socrates was a man. 3. ) Therefore Socrates was mortal. Kalam Cosmological Argument: 1. ) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. ) The universe began to exist. 3. ) Therefore the universe had a cause. There are two types of causation: event causation and agent causation. Like if I ask you why is the tea boiling? You would say something like, "Stove is hot and metal conducts heat. " Which would be event causation. But I then would ask you why is the tea there in the first place? You would say something like "Someone wanted tea so they put it there. " Which would be an example of agent causation. Event causation: physics, scientific explanation process Agent Causation: cooperation with physics. 2. ) The universe began to exist. Based off of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Hubble's red shift, and Einsteins equations, the universe has been proven to be finite. 3. ) The universe has a cause. Simply put, beginnings have Beginners. So if matter began to exist at the moment of creation, then the matter's cause must be nonphysical or spiritual. Since space itself came into existence at the moment of creation or the big bang, space's cause must be space-less. Since time began at the moment of creation or the big bang, time's cause must be timeless. Since change is a product of time, time's cause must also be changeless. Given the immensity of energy and matter that comprises the universe, energy and matter's cause must be unimaginably powerful. Best explanation for the origin of the universe is that it was brought into by a personal Creator. Alternate explanations: The universe brought itself into existence. However, for something to cause itself to come into existence, it must already exist. If it already exist, it must have a cause outside itself. Do you not realize how illogical that sounds? I can not bring my self into existence, because i did not exist to bring my self into existence. So until you can provide me evidence that everything that begins to exist does not have a cause, the universe did not begin to exist, or the universe does not have a cause, this argument stands valid. This argument does not reveal that the bible is reliable, that Jesus is God, or Christianity is true, but this argument does reveal that the universe was created and someone created it. Thank you for your time!
God exist, and belief in His existence is rationally justified.

God exist and belief in God is rationally justified through historical and scientific evidence. There are a couple of arguments I would like to focus on, such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Design Argument, and much others. This debate is not to discuss free will or the inerrancy of the Bible (although are great topics), but the existence of God. These arguments don't point to the Christian God, but they do point to a creator.
school uniforms

First of all, you've totally disregarded the duration of my arguments which can only make me assume you have none and you're hoping for the best here. Okay, if it's around "85 then that's you covered for the whole year, providing they've bought the correct size. It's not like you have to buy a brand new uniform every week. Since when is school a place for a child to feel special and different? This isn't heaven. School is a place for kids to LEARN and get an education. And as I said before, if kids wear non-school uniform everyday, it will distract the kids from learning because they'll be looking at what all their friends are wearing. And as I also said before, if non-school uniform is worn everyday, the higher class kids WILL bully the lower class kids because they're not wearing "branded clothes" I'm 14 years old; I've seen it with my own eyes. You will be able to pin-point a child easier if they are wearing the exact same attire; say you're a teacher and an accident happened; a young man got lost; the police ask you "Hey, what was the child wearing?" You could easily reply "Oh, he's wearing school uniform" The police would look at the uniform and it'd totally narrow down the search. However, if they were in non-school uniform, said accident happened and the police asked you "Hey, what was that kid wearing" we all know you'd be like "Erm, it was like something blue maybe? Not too sure" Is that helping the police? NO. Also, if you've already acknowledged that you agree with the statement, why is it you're trying to question said statement even though you've just said you've agreed with it. C-O-N-T-R-A-D-I-C-T-O-R. You know what that spells, right? Yeah, you can express yourself through clothing, but OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL. At school, the way you're supposed to express yourself is by excelling at the subjects you do. As said above and in the previous argument, kids who can afford the branded clothes will bully those who can't afford them. Wearing the same attire means no one will ever know if you have branded clothes or not, therefore preventing bullying. Also, the kids represent the school. Them walking around in non-school uniform isn't exactly doing that, is it? For Round 3, I want you to respond to ALL my arguments this time, not just one or two that you could barely think of responses for.
school uniforms

On average a mid-class school uniform would be around $85. Plus an additional one. How can a child feel special and different if every other kid is wearing the same thing. It can very much effect the child social and learning environment. And when you said that 'what if there was a major accident and a kid was lost? How would you identify him?' i completely agree with that statement. If a child is lost how easy will it be to identify one kid if hundreds of other kids are wearing the exactly same attire. And you very much need to express yourself through clothing. Its a right and helps develop fundamental social skills. In what way would you have the uneducated conclusion that it can prevent bullying. Explain.
school uniforms

First off, I guess this is a controversial issue so I'll do it. Bear in mind that this is my first time. ~~ You say that school uniforms are expensive, you think non school uniforms are much cheaper? Finance regarding buying both school and non-school uniforms will always be a problem. Also, kids aren't the nicest nowadays; I know for a fact that the richer kids will bully the poorer kids for not wearing popular branded clothes. So by saying you want non-school uniform all the time, you're indirectly promoting bullying. You say and I quote "Having kids all wear the same thing can make a harmful envirement for kids to learn." It's actually the opposite As sad as it is to say, you can tell how a person is doing financially by what they wear; kids don't want their peers to know their parents may be having financial problems. If everyone is wearing the exact same thing, no one will find out about any of the problems they may have outside school. The idea of expressing yourself clothes-wise is ludicrous. When in school, that's not the way you should be expressing yourself; you SHOULD be expressing yourself with vast knowledge of the subjects you learn, playing well in sports. Of course there's the fact it'll improve general appearances for the future but that's not a very strong argument so you can disregard that. But now, here's the gruesome part: What if there was a major accident and a kid was lost? How would you describe that kid? See, if they were wearing a designated uniform, it would be a lot easier to pin-point those who ever appeared in situations like that. And believe it or not, these things do happen often. In conclusion, everyone wearing the same thing will prevent bullying, save lives and you don't need to express yourself via clothes. I agree that non-school uniform days should happen every so often but not everyday; we don't need that at all.
In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

Since Con has not provided any rebuttals, I will provide my third argument:Democratic Ideals PromotedTaking on this action of making voting compulsory would be only asking those who take advantage of the democracy to put in their work for the same democracy. We will be asking those citizens who wish not to go to a polling station to complete their duty. Additionally, the fact that the registered voters would have an incentive to go to vote in the election year, they will be forced to keep up with the parties and the leaders. If they have to go to the polling station, they will think, why not just vote for someone. This thought will increase the number of people who would place a legit vote and would be voting for what they believe.I would like to extend this argument, but seeing that Con has yet not provided rebuttals to my last two and has not strengthened Con's own arguments, I will delay the extension of this argument.
Every human is unique.

Resolved; Every human is unique. This argument hinges on the idea that humans are sentient. That they have a inner reflective self that is capable of observing the world.I argue that this must be true not only because we as humans can know it ourselves when we reflect on our own condition, but that our moral and legal structures that we take for granted require it to be true.My argument here is that the way humans interact with one another is only explainable by the fact that we treat every human as unique; not interchangeable, irreplaceable, and impossible to place monetary value upon.So my opponent should have an easy time defeating me as this person will only need to give me another reasonable explanation for why we believe the following:1.) If a 6 year old child is murdered, it is not sufficient for the murderer to return any number of 6 year old children to the family even if they were exact replicas or clones. The only way to compensate the family fully would be to bring the same child back to life. a.) We treat this totally different than if someone had destroyed any other property the family possesses. Often compensation is twice the value of the item plus compensation for mental distress. Why does the same reasoning not apply to murder?2.) Slavery is unacceptable. a.) If humans are just another animal, how can it be morally impermissable for some animal to own the same type of animal? That is, it's not logically impossible for an animal to form hierarchies, even if they are all the same animal.As a condition of this debate, my opponent must concede that slavery is morally wrong, and that a family of a murdered child can only be fully compensated if at least their child is returned to life.My argument is that any moral framework that posits those ideas can only be logical if humans are unique.Try to avoid symantics, and keep in mind that you will have 24 hours for each round and there are 4 rounds.
Every human is unique.

"Sentience != uniqueness." - ConSince this is a new argument my opponent as put forward I will do away with it and go on to my conclusion.Sentience absolutely necessitates uniqueness, but in a particular sense that I've taken pains to try to describe. Human beings, because of their sentience, possess an "Self" that cannot be replicated, transferred, or exchanged.Evidence of this is the way we treat one another in societies, since we do not allow slavery under any circumstances, and since murder requires the return of that particular person.Conditional Pro-Slavery verus Absolute Anti-SlaveryMy opopnent, as pointed out, is conditionally pro slavery. If the circumstances are right, then it would follow that people could morally be subject to others.But look at the abolition of slavery today. Do we see any conditions written in its abolition? No!So how can we draw any other conclusion than that we view slavery as absolutely immoral under alll circumstances.So what my opponent describes does not conform to the challenge posed to him; Which was to give a rational moral framework that would describe why socities today treat slavery the way that they do. He has perhaps described his own personal feelings of slavery, but that is irrelevant.My argument describes that not only is slavery absolutely immoral, but is also economically illogical.Since each human being is sentient, they are unique in value. A value that cannot be found in the open marketplace because one persons Self cannot be compared to another.Principle versus deceitImagine that one day I accidentally flew my 747 into my opponents parked car. If I followed my opponents reasoning for murder and applied it to his car, I should actually steal whats left of his car, replace it with one that is mostly identical, and pretend it never happened, and should I actually tell anyone I did this, it would defeat the whole purpose and he would not have been compensated for his loss.Of course, he doesn't actually apply the same reasoning to cars as he does to people, and this is particularly the problem I wanted addressed: Why don't we treat cars the same way we do people?Why is it that, since I'm a far superior human being, I cannot go out and get a slave to replace him with if I should accidentally fly my 747 into my opponent rather than his car?He hasn't made any effort to actually address the challenge posed to him, and therefore my position stands; That there is no other reasonable explanation for the way we treat murder other than that we societies in general recognize that each individual person is unique due to their sentience.Sorry for the text change in the last page. There was some confusion, and as a result, some people at the agency have been fired.Please vote on the side of absolute anti-slavery and individual unique value and against my opponents conditional pro-slavery and pro-deceit. Think of the children!
nuclear energy is better than our current energy system

To say that since nothing has happened means we are ready is a extremely false statement. Nothing major had happened with Chernobyl until the accidents. The Chernobyl accident killed 30 operators and firemen within the first 3 months. Acute Radiation Syndrome was diagnosed to 237 people on site. There were several cases of childhood thyroid cancer involved. http://www.world-nuclear.org... We can't truly be ready for such a calamity. Our current system allows for a diverse portfolio of efficient energy methods. Wind and solar both are becoming more common. Wind and Solar are both clean, little to no pollution energy sources. Nuclear is risky and can be catastrophic to the environment and human health.
nuclear energy is better than our current energy system

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for this debating opportunity I will attack my opponent's points then give some of my own. My opponent talks about how much we have advanced since Chernobyl. But we cane ver be sure. Chernobyl was a horrible tragedy that has left lasting effects to this day on soil. In places like Belgium where they were hardly hit the ground is still not farmable. People got cancer from this horrible tragedy and animals were lost. We might say we are ready but we can never be truly ready. We never know when another Chernobyl might happen and leave a lasting stain on the Earth. Nuclear is just to big of a risk. I will now observe the rather broad resolution in where he stated "the current system". The current system is filled with several energy sources. We have every thing from oil to natural gas to hydroelectricity. The current system is an efficient system. It gets gas in our cars and allows us to live the lifestyle we do today. So when he states "the current system". We see a great system. Solar and wind are coming along as cheap alternatives. Gas and Coal and Natural gas has helped for a long time. We can't say "the current system" and see some horrible world. We sat "the current system and we see a futuristic system looking to lower pollution and benefit society.
nuclear energy is better than our current energy system

they've made a lot of head way with nuclear energy safety since the disasters of the past, such as Chernobyl Fukushima. that is why even though other nations are expanding the technology, you dont hear much about problems or disasters. those two incidents are only two problems in the decades and decades of nuclear energy. every technology has problems, air pollution, oil spills etc.... but nuclear while not perfect is good enough and better than the others. this will reduce air pollution and give us free energy. in fact, the two incidents mentioned didn't have major death tolls, and have relatively minor burden on people. our current situation with air pollution kills millions every year. other nations are having a lot of success with this technology and will have a leg up over us.
The life of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, as told through the New Testament, is a fabrication

The points made in the New Testament to support the divinity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, can be shown to be far from unique to the story of Jesus Christ himself. Aspects of his alleged conception to his death are either directly taken from the Egyptian deity Horus, or selectively chosen from an assortment of other deities pre-dating his (Jesus's) existence. Allowed: -inductive AND deductive reasoning -scholarly citations Not Allowed: -personal testimonies of the divinity of Jesus Christ (example: "Jesus spoke to me") -Wikipedia citations (however, you may cite references from a Wikipedia article) -inductive attacks on authors cited *This is not a debate on whether or not Jesus existed* Note: This is my first debate and attempt at adequately using recently attained knowledge of the Socratic Method. I invite any debater of any skill level.
The NSA has gotten out of hand!

I couldn't find any of those incidents but I'll go by your word. Okay you did prove me wrong in the fact that the NSA has stopped some incidents but a study was done out of 227 Al-Qaeda only 17 were stopped by the NSA. I just think the NSA does more harm then good. Most of the Al-Qaeda links were found by the CIA and FBI. Representatives in the White have even came out to say The NSA "had no discernible impact" on preventing terrorist acts. Benjamin Franklin said " Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." So I wonder why else would the Government spend so much to keep it running if it's not even that successful. Simple to spy on us there's no threat to them we are the threat. Instead of complaining I will give some solutions to the problem of which we have right now. People are worried about security, instead of doing things illegally which in the 4th amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Then which the NSA has already violated. We instead should find ways to improve on what we already have, the FBI, Police force ect. To be more precise and helpful rather than suspect everyone to be a potential terrorist. Number two we should figure out why other countries hate us so much right now that they would want to attack us. It's not for what we stand for then what is it. All I know is for the past century theres been non stop war. Vietnam, Korean, the gulf war, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria. How bought spread Peace instead of War. I guarantee if we stayed out of other countries we wouldn't have all these terrorist problems to begin with. Right now we have 900 military bases in 130 countries. We still have a base in Germany from World War II why do we still need to be their? It'd be like if iran decided to build a military base in America. That'd go over well. I get what your saying but I feel the NSA is just a false sense of security. The NSA might catch 10 crooks but I feel it does more harm then good. I'd rather have a terrorist attack happen and be free then be spied on and chained down and have none. Sorry that's just me. Overall I feel terrorists are pissed off for a reason. We need to pull out of all countries and start building back ours again. It's time for a change I feel back to the way things used to be. Thanks for the argument though not being sarcastic I learn new things from arguing.
The NSA has gotten out of hand!

Ok, let me lay down a listful of dates and facts for you. Ever since the NSA was in place many crimes and evil deeds were stopped. 2003 Layden,Washington. The NSA found out something was up and stopped it. 2005 Jizztown,VA. A building was saved due to investigation of an attack. 2005 Myra County Incident. An attack was stopped before anyone got hurt. 2006 Protocol #237 . A hacked tried to hack into the Pentagon, but was stopped before it could happen. 2008 Polippi, AZ. A man was stopped before he could pick up his sandwich. SEE ALL THESE ARE PROOF. now before you come up with an argument think please. Yo butt must be jealous from all the shyt that comes out of your mouth
The NSA has gotten out of hand!

I feel I own the right to privacy and I feel everyone does. My name is Ben by the way, second, I challenge you to tell my one benefit that the NSA has gotten out of spying on us. See that the NSA is the Government a d the government is owned by the people of the United States I have a right to tell them not look at my stuff. The NSA I feel is an illegal part of our government right now. Again I challenge you to find a terrorist attack that has been stopped by the NSA since 2001 when the patriot act was enacted. Spying to me is censorship, you shouldn't be prosecuted on what you do on the internet. The internet is a free library available to the most common man for free. It is a world wide library of information. Do you get prosecuted for checking books out of the library , no! Do you accept my challenge?
The NSA has gotten out of hand!

Aight drummerbich let me tell you this in laymen's terms. You think the NSA is getting in yo bizness cus you think they be spying on all yo shyt. Well let me tell you, they be doing their job aight? They be keeping my family safe. So if yo asss got a prob with it then go tell them. Yo think u got the right to tell them not to look at yo stuff? Guess what yo asss dont. I think the NSA is a great idea and is making the country a safe place bich asss niga.
The Death Penalty

He firmly believes in the preciousness of life, as do I. That is a good thing. However, my opponent has failed to recognize that causing the death of another is immoral in any case. It is a direct violation of the unalienable rights acknowledged by our Founding Fathers and our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. .. " The death penalty does not protect life. It does not protect liberty. It does not protect the pursuit of happiness. Frankly, it protects nothing. It is an immoral act; an action of injustice. The "life for a life" logic is, frankly, quite heinous. The notion of taking any life for any reason is nefarious. We should not be in the position to choose who lives and dies. That should be the duty of fate. This is both a question of morality and democracy. As you have seen in my main argument, less and less people like the death penalty. This is for good reason. For one, the justice system is flawed in the United States and, as I have emphasized continually, taking a life is immoral. Two wrongs do not make a right. I await the beginning of the voting period.