BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)

I thank Pro for their replyThe shrinking Universe means the universe began to exist ?Previously I argued that half of something is always something, Pro did not argue against this claim. Pro merely pointed out to some "theories". This isn't a refutation of my claim that half of something is always something, thus refuting Pros claim that the shrinking universe = the universe did not exist at some point.Although pro rejects a beginning-less actual infinite universe, Why can't the universe be a beginning-less potential infinite universe ?Pro says "To make a logical argument for that, one has to abandon known scientific principles, use wordplay, and go against minds like Hawking and Sagan (atheists)"Where is the "word play" in this argument ?Why does known scientific principles have to be abandon too consider such a proposition ?Since where did going against the minds of Hawking and Sagan automatically mean you are wrong be default ? Did these two people get equated with the word of God and I didn't get the email ? Is this the same Hawking that says God is not necessary for the universe to exist ?What does it mean too say that something began to exist ?Once again Pro rejects that time is objectively real. Their illustration about the boss being angry at you being late to work doesn't help their case. I remind Pro of my previous argument......."Pro once again denies the objective reality of time. If time is not objectively real, then temporal events are not objectively real, and the claim that the universe began to exist is a temporal event.As such the universe did not begin to exist (not in the real objective sense anyway)"KCA plays by two different rules, rules that apply within the universe "physics" and rules that apply outside of the universe "metaphysics".Pro dismisses this claim. Previously I listed 4 things that the KCA argues can happen "outside" of the universe but can't happen "inside" the universe. Those 4 things are....1) Something existing without a cause (God)2) Creating energy where there is no pre existent energy (Creation ex nihilo)3) A mind without a brain (God)4) Not subject to physical laws (God)Pro does not dis agree with this distinction, Pro just dismisses. Trouble is just dismissing it doesn't make it go away, as such this contention remains.You can't get something from nothing...........or can you ?Pro says "First of all, the "something from nothing" comment was mine. The KCA does not argue HOW the universe was created, or even that there was absolutely nothing."Now Pro seems to be implying that it is possible to get something from nothing. This refute premise 1 of KCA that says "1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence."I look forward to Pros reply.
therr are no messianic proohecies that can be attributed to Jesus

Thank you again to GM Debater for once again issuing this challenge.Prophecy 1: Jesus Would be Born in BethlehemI'm not sure why GM Debater takes issue with this prophecy. To come out of a country is to be born there. The prophecy really couldn't be any clearer.This person could, in fact, be God. The fact that He "has a God" indicates that not only would Jesus be God, but He would also be fully Man (for instance, Jesus prayed to God, calling him Father). The fact that he "had a God" indicated that He would be Jewish and would believe in the one true God as true Jews do. This prophecy does not denote Jesus would be a military leader. In fact, Jesus is called the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus constantly taught to love our enemies, to love each other as we love ourselves. What is more peaceful than that?Jesus fulfilled every part of this passage.Prophecy 2: The Coming of Zion's KingThere is no contradiction in the passages here. Jesus rode on a young donkey. There may have been two animals present, but Jesus didn't sling his legs over both of them. I don't think a human's legs can stretch that far. He rode into Jerusalem riding one donkey. If you see me eating an apple while holding a banana, then someone asks you where I am and you say, "he's in the next room eating an apple." You haven't lied. You just didn't mention the banana I was holding.Jesus does, in fact, have a dominion. Jesus, as God, created the world and the entire universe. He did speak peace unto the heathen. In fact, He hung out with tax collectors and sinners, those the Pharisees would never have deigned to hang out with. The verse in question doesn't say His message wasn't for heathen. His message was for all that would hear. But His specific mission while on Earth was to the "lost sheep of Israel," which are the people that He reached while He was here on Earth.Prophecy 3: New CovenantThe Instigator misunderstands the meaning of this verse. The New Covenant must be established with a blood sacrifice. The New Covenant was instituted when Jesus died on the cross, shedding His blood for the world. When the passage in Jeremiah says that we will no longer have to teach others saying, 'know the Lord,' this is because we can now know God personally. We no longer have to go to Synagogue and have a rabbi preach to us from the word, or go to a priest to make sacrifices for our sins. We can now know God personally, which was made possible by Christ dying on the cross.ConclusionThe Instigator has several fundamental misunderstandings of Scripture, which are made evident by his attacks on these prophecies. I have shown that they have, in fact, been fulfilled in their entirety by Jesus. I do not anticipate dropping any of these prophecies as I wholeheartedly trust in their accuracy and in their fulfillment by our Lord and Savior, Jesus. I look forward to our next round.
therr are no messianic proohecies that can be attributed to Jesus

There were many prophecies in the Old Testament that referred to Jesus, and I will only limit the prophecies listed here to three. These are three of the clearest prophecies that we can see in Scripture. Prophecy One: Jesus would be born in BethlehemMicah 5:2 -- "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. "We see this prophecy fulfilled in Matthew 2:1-6 and Luke 2:1-7. Prophecy Two: The Coming of Zion's KingZechariah 9:9 -- "Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. "We see this prophecy being fulfilled in Matthew 21:1-11. Prophecy Three: The New CovenantJeremiah 31:31-34 -- "'The time is coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them' declares the LORD. 'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the LORD. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,' declares the LORD. 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. '"We see this prophecy fulfilled in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and Hebrews 8:7-13, and since covenants are set into motion by blood sacrifices, the New Covenant was established when Christ died on the cross. The resolution is "there are no Messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus. " This can be shown false if 1) I can find just one Messianic prophecy that was attributed to Jesus, or 2) even if it could be attributed to someone else, it still applies to Jesus. What makes Jesus so special is that there weren't just one or two vague prophecies that He fulfilled, there were many very specific prophecies that He fulfilled (such as being born in Bethlehem). I look forward to our next round.
therr are no messianic proohecies that can be attributed to Jesus

Rules and Debating Procedure Round 1 Con must present any prophecies you claim is a proof. Please label them for clarity of response (Contradiction A, B, C, etc). Round 2 I will respond to the prophecy and show how they were forged, do not exist, or are not true prophecies at all. Con may respond in round 2 either with challenging my response, or presenting new prophecies (or both). Round 3 I will respond to his challenges or new contradictions. Con may only respond to my answers. Round 4 I will respond to his challenges. In the close of round 4 Con may not present new arguments or respond to my arguments. The purpose of this is to give an even round. A note about Burden of ProofThis debate does not have burden of proof in the way normal debates do. My burden is to rebut the common "proof" texts and my opponent must present them.Limitation of SpaceSince it takes more space to answer a prophecy, I am limiting my opponent to 3 prophecies. If you wish to add a prophecy, you will need to drop a prophecyGood luck!
There should not be a age limit to get a tattoo!

In this debate I will be arguing as the Con, by negating the following resolution: "There should not be a age limit to get a tattoo!". I will be arguing that there should be an age limit to acquire tattoo, which according to Dictionary.com, is "the act or practice of marking the skin with indelible patterns, pictures, legends, etc., by making punctures in it and inserting pigments". An age limit is defined as, according to Dictionary.com once again, "regulation establishing the maximum age for doing something or holding some position". I would like to ask my opponent to clarify her definition of age limit, for according to the official definition there should be an age in which senior citizens can not get a tattoo. I'm assuming, based on the first argument posted, that the Pro wants the to be a lower age requirement to acquire a tattoo. If Pro does not clarify, we will be debating whether or not a 70 year old can get a tattoo or not. I await my opponent's response and I am looked forward to a productive, albeit interesting debate. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Raise the Driving Age

The driving age is way too low. In some states kids can drive as young as 14. The amount of car accidents that happen with minors is off the charts. Kids are allowed to start driving as they are just starting to mature. There are way too many car accidents with the youth, kids should only be allowed to get their permit at seventeen and then a license by eighteen, but to allow children just entering their teens to drive is ridiculous. Many kids look forward to getting their license, and wish they could get it at a younger age, but they are still just kids. They are too immature to be allowed to start driving. They should take a lecture driving course before even being allowed to enter a car. When it comes to the driving age we are way too lenient. The driving age should be raised so we can lower the amount of accidents caused by teens.
Raise the Driving Age

All of your information is your opinion. None of it is proven facts or studies. You keep arguing that keeping teens off the road won't do anything, but that is your own opinion, studies show otherwise. http://www.news-record.com... There are specific facts in this source opposing your opinion, by proving it. Here is an exact quote "A review of 11 studies concerning traffic rates and ages of new drivers determined that age was the deciding factor: Teens who are older when they begin driving have lower crash rates than 16-year-olds who get behind the wheel." So this disproves your opinion. By raising the driving age, we would be lowering the crash rate with the youth in America. http://www.usatoday.com... This source also proves how 16 year old drivers are the most likely to crash. This disproves everything you are arguing. Raising the driving age will keep our youth safe
Raise the Driving Age

Pro, thank you for the rebuttals - yet you have yet to argue a rather large point in my previous post. Keeping teens off the road would not solve anything. Raising the driving age would only make the young adults that are now considered 'new drivers' have more car crashes. Either way, you can't get experience if the age limit keeps changing. Maturity has nothing do to with this, in my opinion. If you are able to pass and complete the State issued tests, then obviously the government (and in most cases, I would presume, your guardians) believe you can handle driving on the road with other citizens. Teens that have been given their license have obviously been deemed responsible enough by State Government - surely you trust your government, no? Either way, crashes cannot be avoided, and it's sad so many happen with our youth, and we should just make sure they are prepared for the road. Sources: My own common logic.
Raise the Driving Age

I do have a debate for lowering the drinking age, but that is for totally different reasons. You can read my supporting information in that debate. Con, you state that I have a misconception about the driving age, yet in one of your source links it states that people between the ages of 15-24 are the cause of 30% of motor vehicle accidents. So I do not know where you get your information about 17 and 18 year olds. Additionally, these minors you talk about getting their licences early should not be allowed. This is my point, just because these teens take a course does not mean they are ready to get behind the wheel. Also, you stating that many teen accidents happen due to drinking does not really help your side. By raising the driving age we keep some of those teens off the road. My main point is that we should wait until teens mature more instead of letting them get some type of permit as young as some do http://www.cdc.gov...
Raise the Driving Age

Pro started with mentioning that some children as young as fourteen start to drive - this is a commonly misunderstood fact. The driving age in most states is 17-18, the misunderstanding comes from 'exceptions'. Minors that are younger than seventeen can take a early formal driver's educations course that will allow them to get their license early (all while having to pass the tests given by the Secretary of Sate, of course.) Pro also stated about the out of control numbers for teen car crashes. For one, teens are four times more likely to get in a car accident than adults - and that's only because of their lack of experience compared to those of someone in their 30's. Raising the driving age would not solve any of this, but merely raise the popular age group for most car accidents. On another note, most teen accidents happen due to drinking, which I find ironic as you have another debate up saying the drinking age should be LOWERED. Not enough characters for links, sorry.
The Brazilian impeachment is a coup

Ok, the first thing is that we need to know what is a coup, a coup is the illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus. President Dilma Vana Rousseff said that the Brazilian impeachment process against her was a coup because it was against the constitution. Dilma has put Brazil in a big crisis due to she's socialist economic policies, she was also involved in a political scandal, the Petrobras scandal. Dilma also tried to make a coup, she tried to make the ex-president Lula da Silva minister, the problem was that he was being investigated by the operation car wash, so that could not be made and if it was made Lula would not be investigated anymore. The coup argument have been pretty much created as an excuse made her party to save her, but guess what, it did not worked.
The world is overpopulated, and responsible people know this, so they should not reproduce.

I took the wrong side. :( That will teach me to read debates before accepting.I will take a try anyways.RebuttalsMy opponent's main argument is this:"There are areas of the world that face overpopulation due to a combination of factors:1. Poor resource distribution2. Lack of education3. Violation of reproductive and other human rights4. Environmental mismanagement5. Insufficient carrying capacityOn the other hand, there are areas of the world that are not overpopulated, and/or do not face those problems. Reproduction is not the real cause of overpopulation, thus responsible people would still reproduce"Today I will prove that overpopulation is in fact a result of reproduction. My argument goes like this:P1. Reproduction causes more humansP2. The number of humans has been risingC. The rising population is a result of reproduction.Overpopulation is not the result of the factors my opponent listed, but a result of people reproducing.The population has been rising over the past years, if you look at this graph.http://i42.tinypic.com...; As you see, in the modern age, population has increased a lot. The definition of responsible is accountable for one's actions. Responsible people know about the population growing, thus they will take the responsibility not to reproduce. Adopting would solve the problem because no new humans have been created.My opponent's argument about rights does not apply because this debate is about responsibility, not rights.Sourceshttp://www.subdude-site.com...; http://www.worldometers.info...;http://www.scientificamerican.com...;http://dictionary.reference.com...
Rescuing our Failing Education System

Note: Pro has not gave any clear evidence as to how successful the German system is on students. Pro has not given the average GPA or anything to support his theory. All Pro has really done in this debate is give facts on what happens in the German education system. Defense: Pro begins the argument with a question as to wear the public funding will come from. Pro claims that the tax payer cannot just pay for all of this. Okay, we both agree that the current education system we have is failing us. All we do is take that money that is going into education, and change the framework for education. We also spend 800 billion dollars on our military. You can just take money out of that funding to fund education. Even though I disagree with this, Bernie Sanders and his supporters are comfortable with taxing rich people above 60%. There are several ways to get money for a comprehensive charter school system, and it will solve the education problem. "A public school could be just as good as the charter school if it was given equal funding. I am not opposed to charter schools and private schools; my argument only lies with the public education system. I think charter and private schools should be left to their own choices. The public school system is what needs to be remodeled. And before you dismiss the German school system, let me explain it a little bit more in detail so that you can understand. " Pro gives Con the added benefit of saying that a public school can be equally as good as a charter school system if it was given equal funding. So, Pro already admits that charter school systems are better than the current state of public schools. This just makes my job easier on proving that charter school systems are better. I am not interested in the German School System. I am interested in the results, and it is unfortunate that Pro did not give the results of the system. Results of Charter School System: The Nation"s First All-Charter School District "New Orleans is the first city to build an education system based on these three principles. As a result, student achievement is on the rise; equity is increasing; and New Orleans citizens strongly back the reform efforts. Before Hurricane Katrina decimated the city and most of its schools in 2005, 64 percent of public school students in New Orleans attended a school designated as "failing. " Currently, only 9 percent of students attend failing schools. High school graduation rates have increased by more than 20 percentage points, from below 50 percent to more than 70 percent. And, in 2013, a study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) found that New Orleans charter schools deliver five months of extra learning per year when compared to similarly situated traditional schools. :" New Orleans is an example of where public schools were failing, and charter school systems made it better. . http://educationnext.org... Pro has not provided sufficient results, and has only taught us about how german school systems. Pro has actually shown results.
Rescuing our Failing Education System

I agree with rescuing our failing education system. I think it is cause that all Americans can agree with. The argument is on how this should be executed. I believe that Pro has a poor plan borrowed from Germany. I will be proving that there is a much better education model called the charter school system. I will be proving that the charter school system will outmatch the German system, and make this system look pathetic. Charter School System-A charter school is a US and Canadian term for a school that receives public funding, but operates independently of the established public school system, in which it is located. Charter schools are an example of alternative education. I believe that public schools need to compete, and blossom new education systems that will satisfy ambitious students. I believe that schools need to compete for Parental approval in order for a better education system. http://www.ncpa.org... This link outlines the idea that private schools outperform public schools. This is because private schools are allowed to compete. They compete for parental approval, and if they do not perform well, than Parents can take their kids out. A 10 percent increase in enrollment in private schools improves PISA math test scores by more than nine percent of a standard deviation, nearly equal to a half a year's worth of learning. For science and reading, a 10 percent increase in private school enrollment generates an improvement of more than five percent of a standard deviation -- more than one-fifth of a grade level. In educational spending, a 10 percent increase in the private school enrollment leads to a $3,209 reduction in spending per student -- on average, more than 5 percent of the total education spending per student through age 15 for OECD countries. In the Netherlands, more than three-quarters of 15-year-old students attend privately operated schools; about 50 percent of students attend private schools in Belgium, Ireland and Korea, while only 5 percent attend private schools in Greece, Iceland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Turkey. - See more at: http://www.ncpa.org... Public Schools need the same kind of system. If the German system is forced on all schools, than it might not work, and launch another 12 years of horribly educated people. In a charter school system, schools are free to use a German system, and Finland System. If it works more schools will try to perfect the system. Germany is also different from America, and a German System is subject to unintended consequences in America.
Rescuing our Failing Education System

It has become abundantly clear that the United States educational system has failed to provide our nation with smart, educated, and knowledgeable young adults that can produce effective ideas and instruments to better our government, our economy, and our well-being. My argument is to call for a total reform of the educational system by erasing the current system and replacing it with one that closely resembles the German education system. I think it would be a more effective approach in producing great thinkers, rightly distribute jobs based on education and experience rather than solely relying on recommendations and relationship ties. It would remove the restrictions of jobs for the under-educated, leave higher-leveled jobs for those who achieved their station through hard work and determination rather than race, money, or sex, and it would allow for more creative flow between people of equal intelligence to better the economy.