BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This debate is pointless

Hmmmm now on to the real debate. First of all do you have proof that this particular debate is in fact drawing in more traffic to the internet and benefiting Debate.org? Yes, it can help you practice good grammar, spelling and typing but the point of practice is to improve, right? Did you take a test before debating this topic? Then you would have to test yourself after to show that there was indeed improvement...and since we are still debating and you don't have a way to prove it yet...it is kind of pointless, right? Debate itself is not pointless, however "this" debate is pointless for we are only debating whether or not it is pointless.
This debate is pointless

First of all I am really confused. Are you arguing that this debate is pointless or not? You originally state that it is pointless and then conclude that it is not. If I state that "this" debate is pointless, than I am taking your side but if I say that it is not then I am taking your side so I will just say that this pointless debate is not pointless as it is making me think harder, which may in turn warm up my brain and hopefully create a spark that will eventually start a fire of intelliegence.
This debate is pointless

Is this debate really that pointless? That word is really subjective you know, certainly there are better things I could be doing with my time but that doesn't mean this debate has no benefits. For one it is increasing internet traffic on this website, thus making the advertisers like it more, becasue me and my opponent are both devoting time to this, thus making this website more vaulble to the owners and perhaps it will help bring about more features to this website. Secondly I am able to practice my grammar, debating, wording, spelling, and typing skills while engaging in this debate, for in this age of the computer and free speech can be nothing but an asset. All in all isn't it evident that there is purpose and reason to engage in this activity? I have actually spent little time or electricity on this and yet am yielding a variety of benefits both for debate.org and my own person. Resolved, this debate is not pointless.
The cause of the universe, must be a sentient/ personal being

Thank you for offering this topic as a subject for debate. Both in the proposal and in the explanation of the proposal the term "the universe" is used. I take this to mean not just any casual selection of one of the infinite number of possible universes there are to chose from, but, instead, the one universe that humans are sensibly aware of that is the subject of this debate, and will use that definition in the arguments that follow. As I see it, the proposition has three parts. First there is a cause of the universe. Second that the cause of the universe is a being, and third that the being that is the cause of the universe, of necessity, has to be a sentient/personal being. We both mutually agree to assume there is a cause of this, our universe, and I will show that when this is assumed, and the model is that of one universe, and that universe being the one we humans are sensibly aware of, then it follows since the universe only exists in our awareness of it, and since this awareness is a characteristic of our personhood and an attribute of consciousness, then the "cause" of the universe can be none other than our personal conscious awareness of it, making humans the sentient/personal beings that caused the universe. I look forward to the discussion that follows.
The cause of the universe, must be a sentient/ personal being

For the sake of this debate, we will assume that the universe did, in fact, have a cause. The burden of proof will be on my opponent to show why the cause must be a sentient/ personal being. Since the burden of proof is on Pro, Pro will make the first argument in this round (the first round is not for acceptance, but for my opponent to present an opening argument). In round 4, my opponent will simply put:"No argument will be posted here, as agreed" This means, that we both give up a round (I'm giving up this round, and Pro is giving up round 4) to ensure that Pro gets the first say, and I get the last say due to the burden of proof. Failure to abide by the rules will result in an automatic forfiet. Good luck!
The cause of the universe, must be a sentient/ personal being

Rather than a 'bare assertion', my argument that the universe only exists in our awareness of it is a self-evident truth, that is, it is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof. However, if proof is required, then I suggest Con demonstrate a universe that exists which we are not aware of, or for that matter, any 'thing' that exists that humans are not aware of. This Con cannot do; because to do so would be to concede 'awareness' is the cause of the existence . The 'awareness' of a thing proves it exists; the unawareness proves it does not exist. This self-evident truth is something Con inadvertently proves the validity of by stating " The key evidence of The Big Bang Theory for instance centers around the Red Shift of the galaxies [1], and the Cosmic Microwave Background [2], which suggests the universe is much older than us" which is the same as saying 'I (a personal, sentient human being) am aware of some evidence . The 'evidence' itself is a thing that exists because Con is consciously aware of it. The universe, likewise, is a thing that exists in the conscious awareness and if Con were not aware of it, it would not exist. I build on this self-evident truth to conclude that only a sentient personal being could be the cause of the universe because it is our conscious that gives our senses reality and since there is no evidence that any other being has a conscious awareness of the universe then by the process of elimination and by reason I argue the beings who are aware of the universe must be the beings who caused that universe to exist. Con says This is a silly argument. My opponent has given no reason to think that the universe didn't exist when humans weren't around. Is it 'silly' to think the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth, or that planets are in a circular orbit, or that light travels through ether, or that ether doesn't exist but a cosmological constant does? What is 'silly' is to treat evidences that exist only because we are aware of them as if our awareness plays no part in their existence. Con brings up the past, citing evidences that matter from the past proves the universe existed before humans existed, but there is no 'evidence' that the past even existed, because our awareness of the evidence only exists in the present. The past is simply an accumulation or collection of previous present conscious awareness. In this round, I answered Con's "bare assertion" argument by proving the argument from which all else follows is a self-evident truth. I answered Con's proofs from science by pointing out the only reason they exist is because of our awareness of them. I answered Con's evidence of matter in existance before humans were in existence by explaining that there is no "past" in the consciousness, only present. I answered Con's "silly" argument by other arguments deemed silly now, but in the previous present consciousness they were deemed reasonable and rational. I look forward to the next round of the debate.
The cause of the universe, must be a sentient/ personal being

I apologize for the last round, don't let this indicate to you that I forfeit the debate. I will get into my opponent's arguments here: "We both mutually agree to assume there is a cause of this, our universe, and I will show that when this is assumed, and the model is that of one universe, and that universe being the one we humans are sensibly aware of, then it follows since the universe only exists in our awareness of it." - ProThis is a bare assertion. My opponent has not supported the claim that the universe only exists in our awareness of it. There is much evidence to suggest that the universe existed a long time before any humans did. The key evidence of The Big Bang Theory for instance centers around the Red Shift of the galaxies [1], and the Cosmic Microwave Background [2], which suggests the universe is much older than us. ", and since this awareness is a characteristic of our personhood and an attribute of consciousness, then the "cause" of the universe can be none other than our personal conscious awareness of it, making humans the sentient/personal beings that caused the universe." - ProThis is a silly argument. My opponent has given no reason to think that the universe didn't exist when humans weren't around. We have found fossils of "non-person" animal bones traced back before the first known person [3]. This is strong evidence that the universe existed before any sentient humans. This means, sentient humans couldn't be the cause. Sources[1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Medical Cocaine

I sure hope you're not being serious here.Not only can cocaine constrict coronary arteries, but it can cause strokes, nasal perferation, ulcers, kidney failure, and impaired sexual function. (1)Such a thing as "medical cocaine" will never come to see the light of day, as it has no positive affects other than a temporary "high" in alertness. The harms it could do seriously outweighs the inadequate positives.SOURCES:(1)- http://www.webmd.com...
Common Core

Common Core is a muti-state insinuative to raise the standards in Math and Language Arts. The current standards to not meet the requirements of employers and has made a high school diploma worth less than it was 30 years ago. In addition the standards vary wildly from state to state. This has made elementary school students in California to be over ahead of students in Arizona. (California 2nd graders are learning what 3rd grade Arizona students are.) There are many myths and out right lies that have come from the political debate over Common Core. I will be debating the facts with out the political hype.
Common Core

Common Core lacks any sort of logic in its methods. Several examples can be seen through a simple Google search displaying the inept ability of the questions that are given that align with the standards of common core to convey the purpose of the question. As a result, it is unclear to the students that are subjected to these questions as to what they should convey in their answer and, as a further result, nothing is gained from the question educationally. Furthermore, Common Core seems to be aimed at the bottom line of students, which while act to inhibit those who are already advanced in their learning progress, as well as those who should be advanced but will not be detected due Common Core's method of accommodation. This will lead to advanced students being suppressed rather than aided, as they will be dismissed as deficient when their way of thinking does not align with the low level process of Common Core's teaching methods.
the bible is not infallible

i almost have to think you're arguing just to argue and not really beliving what you're saying. if "God" says blue is black, and that Jesus has brothers but then says Jesus doesn't, then it was never God who said it. You're simply talking in theory that has no basis in reality. Black cannot be blue. God cannot say black is blue, to the far and away concensus of what God is at least. One cannot have brothers but not have them. your arguments are just rhetorical with no basis in reality. "if one plus two equal four" "then one plus two plus one more HAS to equal five" that sort of nonsense, as if the rhetoric has any bearing in reality. I tend to think you're trying to find a way to argue without actually engaging in any of the posts, as it takes too much effort or something...
the bible is not infallible

Yes, God is not bound by His own laws. His laws are made for man. It isn't a question of consistency, it's a question of morality and fallibility. The fact that you object to the proscriptions of the Bible no more makes the Bible flawed than if I were to object to your political views. However, there's a certain trump card here. We're not talking about a difference of opinion. We're talking about the Bible. The Bible says what it says. That is all which is required in order to know it is right. But, to answer your question, yes, God put us into this world and He can take us out again. It's hard to worry about some bumps and bruises in this life when you have the rest of eternity in paradise for following the laws. You quoted some sections of the Bible (a biased translation, but Bible nonetheless). However what you failed to show how any of it was wrong. You failed to show how the Bible doesn't say the stuff it did. You showed no contradictions. Go ahead, look the text you posted, you have pretty typical law code for the people who lived when it applied (prior to Jesus). However, you showed not one jot which was inconsistent or fallible. Nor can you, as the Bible dictates what is moral and what isn't moral. Clearly the Bible is moral. Though again, morality is not fallible. You can disagree with the Bible (I'm sure Satan does) but that doesn't make the Bible wrong... that makes YOU wrong! The Bible could say that black was blue, though if it did that black would be blue and the Bible would say that black is black and it is. The word of God is infallible. You aren't rebutting anything here. You are just stating things which are clearly true. God could make black into blue. He's GOD! We do have faulty understanding and judgment compared to God the source of understanding and judge of the universe. Go figure!
the bible is not infallible

well from a more logical perspective. you could argue it's a question of consistency. don't kill or have sex before marraige or rape... unless i say so? also, there are these... http://www.evilbible.com... which the things i quoted at first are sufficent in themselves, i think to show inconsistency. and combined with those contradictions, or at least apparent contradictions, if any question, the deference should be to be against consistency. otherwise, your argument could be taken to any point... the bible could say say blue is black, the ible is not infallible, then say it is, then say jesus was brothers with satan etc...... but we are not t oquestion it, because it's just our faulty understanding and bad judgment. do you really believe your arguments, or are you just arguing to take a position?
the bible is not infallible

You have made fantastic arguments that the Bible condones slavery, supports murder, advocates genocide and calls for men to keep their women silent in church. However, you have not established that the Bible is somehow flawed. God commands these things and they are therefore moral. Are you using some moral understanding outside the Bible to condemn the words of the Bible? And if so, how? The Bible is the origin of morality and is thusly immune from criticisms on the grounds of morality. Also, you are taking all of those cited works out of context. It says in the Bible that the devil will quote scripture in order to trick you. That is what is happening here. Don't be fooled. If the Bible says to murder or punish somebody, we must, like Abraham and Isaac abide by what it says and have faith in God's plan. To disobey God's will based on our own flawed moral judgment is to risk hell fire.
abortion

I do want to close with this: Abortion is legal murder, the baby has the right to live, also I want to add that, there are more people that apply for adoption than the amount of babies in the hospital. Choose life. I'd like to thank hedgehog for debating me. He was a decent and fair debater. A side note: abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life and pro-choice always use the argument about rape and incest? These happened only in less an 1% in the population of women. Also even if the woman or girl is raped and incest has occurred. that still has nothing to do with the baby. It's a different scenario. The unborn baby will only be there for nine months, which is a short time in comparability to a lifetime marred with shame, guilt and sorrow. Give life don't take life.
abortion

1. Continuation You say an unpleasant life is not the same of death and that is true if you have seen footage of 9/11 ( R.I.P all who died) you see people jump why? because its there life they get to choose when they end there life the choices they made were there life not someone Else's and for this reason parents are aloud to abort their birth no matter what people say because its their life. Now the logical reply to this is that why doesn't that baby get to choose ?, the reason is it can't because according to the government it isn't an adult and parents are responsible for their children up to the age of 18. It's murder though ? Well yes it is because your ending it's life but you are responsible for that life and if you cant support that child or you are to immature then most likely you don't want that responsibility, because its a big one. I do believe however if you have a child abort it their should be some restriction if it happens again but human 'error' is un preventable. 2. Adoption Now although that was a lovely example of the benefits of adoption like anything that isn't always the case adoption can be hard how would you like to find out that these aren't your real parents and that your own abandoned you ? you wouldn't But aren't you abandoning them by Aborting them ? Yes you are but they won't remember it. 3. Life and Death A large part of our debate has been on how mean life or death is, so I want to go into it a bit more. "Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live" Personally I think this sums up my point, Death is over exaggerated people ignore what happens during someone's life. I'm sorry for any offence I may have caused with any of my points above I know some of them touch or sensitive issues but I look forward to see what you say in reply. :)
abortion

1. response to clarification and development I agree with you that killing a child is wrong and unjust. However, I disagree that poverty and neglect are the other side of the sword. An unpleasant life is not the same as death, after all life can change. Where there is life there is hope, but death is permanent. Also the child has a right to live an unpleasant life. For example; Ethel Waters was born in Chester, Pennsylvania on October 31, 1896, as a result of her mother's rape at age 13. Ethel Waters was raised in a violent, impoverished home. She never lived in the same place for more than 15 months. She said of her difficult childhood, "I never was a child. I never was cuddled, or liked, or understood by my family." Despite this unpromising start, Waters demonstrated early the love of language that so distinguishes her work. Moreover, according to women-in-jazz historian and archivist Rosetta Reitz, Waters' birth in the North and her peripatetic life exposed her to many cultures. For the rest of her life, this lent to her interpretation of southern blues a unique sensibility that pulled in eclectic influences from across American music.* In short, because of her unpleasant life, she inspired millions. There is also the life of George Washington Carver, one of the brightest American minds of the twentieth century; he had a horrible start, starting with being born in slavery,father and family killed, mother and sister kidnapped and never seen again, left on the side of the road with a big brother that later died. His story is a prime example of what adoption can do. * Wikipedia 2. Response to mental and physical disabilities. Careful. This is a slippery slope. Today the unborn and the mentally ill and tomorrow the baby boomers who are living too long and are being a burden on society. If abortion is acceptable before 24 weeks in the womb, then why stop there? Why not abort the 12 year old child who got hit by a car and became mentally ill and is now a burden after the parents lost their jobs and lost their home because of medical bills. Or maybe they have a break down and their spouse divorces them and the child is teased mercilessly at school. What if all of these things happened at once and life became unpleasant? Given the logic that has been suggested the parent would be justified and society should agree. Just as ridiculous as that scenario was, so is the ideal that people would so selfishly take life because there maybe hardships. Where is hope? I saw a man who had pictures of when he was a down syndrome baby. He is now a man who was healed from that condition as a child and is a normal person who is a minister of the Gospel and brings hope to all that will listen. Sometimes he is a guest on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Man is not the giver of life and man has no right to take life. Death is a enemy even to God. I'm looking forward for you reply :)
abortion

1. Clarification and Development I agree in that the parents don't matter in the sense that they shouldn't get to decide if they want a child but we have to make sure the child life is going to be one where it can prosper and develop because if the parents don't care for their child then it COULD lead to a life of abuse, neglect etc. As for it being a excuse for murder it is a double edged blade, whilst killing the child is wrong and unjust and letting the child be born and its life is that of poverty and neglect. Could it be said you are sentencing the child to a highly unpleasant life ? You mention the fact that there are a wide range of families from functional to non functional and whilst this is very true the aim would be to cut down the amount of non functional families surely and as horrible as it sounds if the parents aren't mature enough to use contraception if they don't want a child then they are obviously not mature enough to raise a child. 2. Mental and Physical Disabilities Now I'm not trying to justify it as a reason for the parents, I am trying to justify it for the child. To start a mental or physical disability of course is unpleasant for the child but because of our modern society as unfortunate as it is people, and kids in general have become very mean. As an example I used to have someone in my school who had a stammer of course its a minor problem which normally can be overcome with support but unfortunately for him everyone bullied him and it got to the stage when I said hello to him and he told me to f off, now I know this is just one school but he became very antisocial to people who were trying to be nice to him. I know I went off topic but what I'm getting at was that all he had was a stammer I dread to think what would of happened if he had a more serious problem. As for statistics, babies who have developed problems such as downs syndrome are less likely to survive the pregnancy. So surely aborting the baby early would be the emotionally right thing to do if you were a mother. Of course this decision is very hard and it is up to the mother but it does seem like a fair point. I look forward to another round :)
abortion

Thanks for choosing to debate with me. Now I don't have to wait all day, lol. anyway Abortion is brutal to say the least. First of all, we don't have to take in account the state of the parents because obviously the parents of this unfortunate being didn't take in account their finances, lifestyle, or responsibility of the consequences of their actions while they were doing their thing. So why should we take anything into account besides now these people who were not thinking want to kill the end result of their passion. When did being an unwanted person or being an uncommitted person or being become an excuse for murder? No one is guaranteed a good life whether you are rich or poor. There are nonfunctional families in every spectrum of society. I would agree with you about abortion is no longer applicable after 24 weeks, but I would argue that science has proven that its unsafe in every stage for the mother as well as the baby. Illegal abortions are carried out everyday regardless of the law. Also the real quality of life after birth is to be able to breathe the breath of life and have a chance for adoption. looking forward for your reply. :)