BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism Doesn't Necessarily Entail That A Universe With A Finite Past Came From Nothing

Secondly, I desire to state that many theists believe that without God in the picture, the universe must either be infinite in age or have came from nothing; there are many reasons why this is a false-dichotomy[1]. However, I will only be focusing on one in this debate, as that is all that is needed to establish the resolution. Thirdly, I just want to say that I will not need much room to make my point, so hopefully the viewers are not expecting a novel. The Universe Coming From Nothing Can Be AvoidedIf the universe came from nothing, then at first, nothing at all exists. .. then the first state of the universe exists and expands; this seems to be what people have a problem with metaphysically. However, this whole scenario assumes that we start with absolutely nothing at all. Why not just assume that at first, the first state of the universe exists and expands? This way we cut the "nothing" out of the equation, making any talk of the universe coming from "nothing" a non-starter logically. So, instead of assuming:a) At first, nothing exists, then, the first state of the universe existsWe can just as easily assume:b) At first, the first state of the universe that exists If we don't start with nothing, then any claim of the universe coming from nothing is false from the get go. Instead of adhering to the notion that the universe came from absolutely nothing, we can just assume the first state of the universe didn't "come from" at all; it just existed 13.7 billion years ago and expanded. Here is a diagram to illustrate the difference between a "something coming from nothing" scenario, and a situation where that is cut out and is not the case: If you look above the red line, you see a "something from nothing" scenario, where at first there is absolutely nothing (no space, no time ect. ), then the first state of the universe magically pops up; there is a transition. If you look below the red line, you will not see a "something from nothing" scenario, as there is no "nothing" preceding the first state of the universe to plug in; there is no transition. ConclusionThe universe only could have came from nothing, if we start with nothing. Then, a transition must occur. However, there is no room for a transition involving something from nothing if we just start with the first state of the universe and cut the "nothing" completely out of the picture (as shown by the bottom half of my diagram). Since there is nothing logically or metaphysically impossible with this scenario, then I have shown that it is not necessary to assume the universe came from nothing to be an Atheist (an Atheist maintaining the universe has a finite past, of course). Instead of "there is nothing, then the first state of the universe", we can just assume "there was a first state of the universe". This view self-evidently logically excludes any something from nothing scenario. Source[1] . http://www.nizkor.org...
the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

even in legal jargon, people are held accountable for things that are reasonably foreseeable. a pregnaany is reasonably foreseeable from having sex. the 'assuming the risk' argument in legal jargon encompasses things that are reasonably foreseeable. there's no reason it shouldn't apply here. the problem with your analogy about the parachute is that using a back up parachute doesn't harm any one else. with abortion, harm to others begins to become an issue. perhaps earlier on, but definitely later on. the problem with your argument that the government should stay out of debatable issues. i agree, sometimes, that that is the case. autonomy should be best kept at the localest persons most affected etc, but when others are affect it's not so clear. and everyone is different and can draw their own lines. most people, not just me, believe that later term abortions should not involve so much autonomy. this is in supreme court cases, and our laws, all over the country. it's no illogical for con to disagree, but the fact that so many people disagree that there are demarcation points, shows that his 'stay out of the debateable stuff' point shouldn't go as far as he's arguing. i dont know why con makes the last point about the fetus subjecting the woman with abortion restrictions, as if that's an issue of unequal treatment etc. i assume he refers to equal protection? in any case, the infant has rights too. at least later in the pregnancy. it would be unequal unfair to the infant to not at least eventuially in the pregnancy give it rights. con argues against my hypothetical about an accident causing another to be attached to you, the accident caused by you. i see no meaningful distinction, though, that the person wronged in the accident did or didn't exist prior to it. all that matters, is that you caused the accident, and now someone's life is dependent upon you for what you did. what does a prior existence matter, when there's an actual life on the line due to the accident you caused?
the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

most of con's points about rights i'd argue are semantics. in a matter of speaking, sure, the baby's rights shouldn't 'trump' the mothers, but be equal to her's. and so on and so on. my only point was that sometimes the rights of the baby mean the woman will not get what she wants. it's hard to tell if con thinks there should be no restrictions on abortion. is he arguing that the mother should be able to abort even a week before her due date? hardly no one argues this. but yes there is some philsophical merit to some things he argues, i agree early on the mother should have more rights. it's too much debated whether the baby is a person and such. but later on, and con needs to address these points, the mother can't do so much cause she 1. assumed the risk of pregnancy and 2. didn't abort when it was morally grayer when she had ample opportunity. how does pro respond to the analogy, if you got in a car accident, caused by you, and the person you hit was somehow attached to you, it woudn't be just in no sense of the word to allow you to kill that person. you caused the accident. she caused the pregnancy. or, she at least allowed the baby to mature into a person, or someone who most would recognize as having rights. it's not fair to call the baby a parasie, for the same reasons it's not fair to kill someone you're responsible for their condition.
the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

I will be arguing that the rights of the fetus should never trump those of the mother. They should either be regarded as equal or lesser.Instead of directly addressing Pro's points this round, I will save my rebuttals for Round 2 and instead focus on developing my own arguments.Rights, as most understand, are fundamental properties and abilities that must be respected of all human beings. Where do they come from? Some say God, but this would be flawed reasoning. Since there is no direct proof of a god, there is no direct proof of rights existing. Others say government, but this denies the implications of negative rights and the government's stated purpose to protect rights. The government only recognizes them. Instead, correct reasoning would lead us to conclude we derive our rights from nature (if we actually have rights- but this discussion is not necessary since they are an assumption in this debate), since they are called natural rights. But do all living things have rights, and if they do, are they equal to ours? I dare say that an amoeba should not be granted equal protection under the law like humans. Therefore, I can assert that humans derive their rights from our sentience: our ability to think, reason, be conscious, and act autonomously. We can make decisions that are not based purely on instinct.Now, as stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal." This means that the government cannot treat certain people more favorably than others; no one's rights are more important than someone else's. This logically leads to the conclusion that no fetus's rights (assuming it is human and protected by the government) should be held higher than its mother's.I could end my argument here. This is simple egalitarian thought, and should suffice in convincing a pro-choice audience. However, I would like to further my claim by stating that the mother's rights are more important than the fetus's.Where does the fetus obtain its life from? The mother. If it is removed from the mother's body, it cannot obtain necessary nutrients and will die. After birth, it is different since the baby can be completely taken away from its mom, be given up for adoption, and never bother the woman again. However, until then, it is simply a parasite. Pro-lifers like to consider fetuses as separate humans, so I will run with that assumption. This 'person' has attached itself inside a woman and is a drain on her physical and emotional health. It causes lasting damage to her body [1] and has the potential to cause significant pain in childbirth, and can sometimes even kill the mother. It is clearly violating the mother's right to privacy, liberty, life, health and livelihood. It cannot do this without the consent of the mother. The mother is not stripping the child of its right to life by getting an abortion, she is affirming her own rights, since they were violated first by the person's intrusion in her body.[1] http://www.thelizlibrary.org...
the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother at least later in the pregnancy... sometiems infant's rights should trump. a mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, and then, she assumed the risk of carrying the child for many months. to be clear, i'm focusing on later in pregnancy. but there and earlier, an argument could be made that earlier in the pregnancy she forfeits her right to not be pregnant by assuming that risk. much like... if you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attachedk to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated. that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not. (if it's debatable, who should decide? the governmnet? why not the mother who is more proximite?) when it was morally grayer. later in the pregnancy though, it's not debatable about personhood. if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems, aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply.
you cannot ban gay marriage without...

However it is really not all that simple. 1. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are on drastically different levels in US law. Namely, the Declaration of Independence is not part of the law at all and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. (1) The pursuit of happiness, as I already said, therefore does not matter all all. My opponent did not dispute the point that this is no different then saying the government should not be allowed to ban anything that makes people happy. Therefore that point has been conceded. 2. My opponent has offered no evidence that marriage originated in religion. I would argue that it did not. Many animals mate for life and they obviously have no knowledge of religion. (2) Denying someone the right to marry does not interfere with their religious practices. Also, polygamous sects are forbidden to taken multiple spouses so this does not apply. Also, none of the points I made about this issue have been disputed, so therefore they have been conceded. Conclusion: Though I feel banning gay marriage is wrong, banning it does not violate either of the two rights my opponent offered. The pursuit of happiness is not part of the law and even if it were, that interpretation would not make any sense. It also clearly does not violate freedom on religion. Thus the resolution that it violates these certain rights has been negated. Sources: (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org... An astute reader will notice that I stupidly neglected to actually cite the Declaration of Independence in round one. However, I think we can all agree that the pursuit of happiness is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence without that being cited.
you cannot ban gay marriage without...

I would like to start of this argument by saying that as a matter of personal belief I fully support the rights of homosexuals to be married. However, the arguments my opponent offers are so weak that they mar this cause. Specifically, the contentions are that it violates the rights of freedom of religion and the pursuit of happiness hold no water. C1: The right to the pursuit of happiness is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (1), which is not an official government document and does not affect the rights of US citizens. Furthermore, not allowing homosexuals to marry one does not completely prevent them from pursuing happiness just because this is one thing that causes happiness. I may become happy by injecting large amounts of heroin into my bloodstream, but that does not mean the government is not allowed to ban this. C2: I fail to see how freedom of religion has anything to do with this. This is no officially recognized religion I can think of that encourages its followers to marry people of the same sex. There have been major religions in history that encouraged their followers to cut out the hearts if innocent victims to keep the sun from burning out. The government would still be allowed to prevent this despite there being freedom of religion. C3: The resolution explicitly states that, "You cannot ban gay marriage with violating [c]ertain rights of a citizen of [A]merica." The two rights listed are the pursuit of happiness and freedom of religion. Though my opponent claims that I must refute any rights she may later bring up, her resolution specifically refers only to 'certain' rights which are listed in her opening argument. Bringing up additional rights in following rounds would not support the resolution. Conclusion: My opponent claims that banning gay marriage would result in the violation of 'certain' rights and lists these rights as being the pursuit of happiness and freedom of religion. I have demonstrated that these two rights do not very well support gay marriage. Thus her resolution that these certain rights would be violated is false.
A monarchy is not an objectively bad government system.

I think you raise some good points but the main problem with a monarchy is that people have no choice in the matter. Another way to look at a ruling monarchy is to call it a dictatorship. When you do that then all the flaws of a monarchy comes out: Sadam Hussein torturing and killing his citizens; Erdogan in Turkey is slowly becoming a dictatorship as he consolidates power, killing his citizens and bringing the rule is Islam into a secular country. There are terrible things done by dictators and a king is absolutely no different: it's literally the reason why there are no more reigning monarchs - it's been horrible experience for everyone other than the ruling family and their sycophants.I disagree that Democracy does not require competence. Since Democracy requires that each leader has to listen to many sides, be able to work with people and understand how the world is run, they have to develop multiple skills in order to be successful and to be VOTED in. This voting mechanism makes every person responsible for how they are ruled and they are allowed to make this decision every few years.If you say that Monarchy is about chance then that too is a huge problem. It is better to be able to control an outcome than leave it to pure random chance that we don't get a Saddam Hussein or someone! Too much power concentrated in too small a group with no accountability or input from the citizens is a very risky to leave to chance.I don't think you have supported any advantages of a monarchy (aka benevelant dictatorship) over a democracy yet.
A monarchy is not an objectively bad government system.

Though the idea of a monarchy takes away the power of both the monarch and the citizens choice, and they very well might not want the power, I disagree with "There will be people with powers that they may not be suited to handle", in the case of a monarch every moment before receiving the throne would be a moment they learn about it. It's very unlikely they would be under prepared, unlike as with a democracy where someone with no political experience at all can come to power by exploiting mob tendencies of humans. No current system of power is based on someones competence. It's more of charisma (Democracy) vs chance (Monarchy). In a monarchy though, the minority is less likely to draw a short straw.
A monarchy is not an objectively bad government system.

The problem with a monarchy is that it unfairly places a single family in charge of something. There will be people with powers that they may not be suited to handle or even want to handle. The world is too complex to place into the hands of a single person and it is too risky to expose ourselves to a bad monarch. The monarchy is inherently unfair and by definition not based on individual competence. Worse there is little accountability when they do wrong.
A monarchy is not an objectively bad government system.

By objectively bad I mean inherently unethical. Government system the system by which a state or community is controlled. I'm arguing for the idea of an absolute monarchy (I have been having bad memory problems, so I couldn't remember the word or how to look it up at the time), so I'm rejecting a parliament within the monarchy for this argument because it fundamentally changes the government structure that I would be arguing for.
A monarchy is not an objectively bad government system.

This is an interesting topic, not least of which, I have argued both for and against a monarchy at various times in my life.Whilst I support the constituional ROLE of a monarch, particularly within the British system, where they have stuff to do but no real power.But before we get into the details, I'd like you to first define what you mean by "objectively bad" (or objectively good). And not to quibble but I'd like to se what you mean by "government system" espcially since you're rejecting a formal parliament (and Prime Minister).
A monarchy is not an objectively bad government system.

You are raising some valid points. However, a monarchy may contain more "training" than a dictator but the end result is still a single person having power without the people's consent. Both systems are more interested in consolidating and maintaining their own power than working for the people. I think to say that a monarchy works for the people has not been bourne my history. I agree that a democracy isn't perfect. The Donald Trump's that we get now and then are the price we pay for people not voting. However, there is a self correction. People are talking politics and policy more than ever before and when he fails we will have a more educated voter base and hopefully not do Trump again. With a monarchy we're kinda stuck. I believe that the self-correcting nature of a Democracy far outweighs any small advantages from a monarchy.
A monarchy is not an objectively bad government system.

The difference between a monarch and a dictator, is a monarch comes to power through blood lines, and a dictator works to gain power. A monarch is born learning about his trade, no uncle or high official can not gain that power without killing off the entire family, and probably more. In a dictatorship, any high ranked official has a shot, it's the same problem as a democracy without a vote. "Since Democracy requires that each leader has to listen to many sides, be able to work with people and understand how the world is run, they have to develop multiple skills in order to be successful and to be VOTED in." Sadly very few people care about skills in a president, charisma sways. Both Americas current president and our last one are clear examples of this pattern. Donald trump has no previous political experience at all, he owns a large company, appeared on tv and was a democrat not long ago. He won by gaining attention, heck he would constantly contradict himself so that people could pick and choose what he supported. Regardless of how one feels about him, he showed none of those skills before office, because what the people wanted was someone relatable. In the case of Obama, I was pretty young at that time as his first election was over eight years ago, but the people I talked to about it then voting for him (Though he actually had some experience) was actually that they either didn't want to be perceived as racist, or he seemed nice but also relatively safe. Very few people even looked at his past accomplishments, or political beliefs. I will also state a more extreme example: Hitler. Hitler was fairly elected by the German public, even though it turned into a dictatorship. He used the anger as many politicians do, that the general public was feeling being in such great debt because of being unfairly blamed for world war one, and pushed the blame on minorities. An example of the mob rule tendencies of democracy. A monarchy being about chance, can just as well avoid a horrible tyrant as create one, in times of chaos and public unrest a democracy is almost certain to come up with a tyrant, because the leader is reflecting the public. Lets give an example. 70% of a country is angry at people of Asian decent in general, in a democracy there is a 100% chance of that group taking a hit, but in a monarchy there remains a 30% chance of that group being left alone. Democracy is very much so often unfair to anyone in disagreement with the majority, where as a monarchy leaves room for a minority opinion to have some power.
Rap Battle

John McCain? Your lines are outdated,Seems to me like you're quite a bit overrated.Couldn't get with any girl you've ever dated,I popped your balloon, your ego has deflated.If you're the product of evolution, Then I'm Charles Darwin; the mastermind.I started this revolution, you're just a pollution,I eliminate your waste to benefit mankind.My raps aren't a river, they're an ocean,Endless and deep, always in motion,Your thoughts aren't killer, they're suicidal,Vincent van Gogh must have been your idol.I spit venom like I'm a cobra,My words like bullets coming from a soldier,Always on the front lines, serving my time,Protecting the rights you have to rhyme.But based on this battle, I think you should quit,The skills to be successful, you're just not equipped.You've been knocked in the face, you've got a fat lip,Take your meals through a straw, you're gonna have to sip.So before I leave it there, let me give you a tip:Don't mess with the best, you crumble like a chip.