BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Aquinas' First Way succeeds

To actualize means to make something potential, actual. For example an ice cube is potentially melted, until it becomes actually melted. To go from frozen to melted is an example of an actualization. With the concept of actualization in mind, I will write out Aquinas' first way as a proof. The word 'existence' will mean: the changing space/time reality. 1. Existence is continually actualized. 2. Something cannot actualize itself. C: Therefore, existence must be continually actualized by its source, which does not need to be actualized. The argument is valid (modus ponens). So, if it is unsound it must be because premise 1 or 2 is incorrect, but naturally I think that premises 1 and 2 are correct. I will go ahead and elaborate on why the source of existence must be God. The source of existence grants actualization to existence, which is why it is called the source of existence. The source could not grant new actualization without conceiving of what it grants, so the source must be personally intelligent. Also, since all things come from the source, it cannot lack, which means that it is perfect (because something that does not lack is perfect). So, if the first way is sound, it proves that a source of existence must exist to actualize existence. The source must be foundation for everything that exists as well as personal and perfect, which is a basic description of the classical conception of the monotheistic God. So, my opponent must demonstrate that either premise 1 or 2 is false or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Also, if he wishes he can contest the conclusions that I extended from the argument that the conclusion necessarily leads to the existence of God (though since this is not a part of the formal debate, he is not required to address this).
Life does not begin at conception:

RESPONSUMFirst of all, the Qur'an doesn't order Female Genital Mutilation, rather this is found in the Sunnah. Second of all, the bible is most certainly not the word of God- regardless of what my opponent claims, one cannot simply come along and decree that his holy book is the word of God, and that every other holy book is false, and that his book is supreme truth with no errors in it with no proof whatsoever save that 'my boom said so.' Especially if you are defending a barbaric and savage practise such as circumcision- better yet, I'm going to do exactly what my opponent did and see how he responds:The bible is not the word of God, the Guru Granth is. What the Bible says is irrelevant to moral, ethical living. And the Guru Granth says that circumcision is unnecessary and forbidden. {1}Third of all, your father has every right to have any form of bodily modification done to him- if he wants to have half his penis cut off, he can go right ahead- the issue arises when people like you decide to go mutilating your newborns genitals because you think that somehow or another it isn't mutilation. Fourth of all, Numbers 5 says that if the wife is unfaithful the water will cause her to have a miscarriage, .e. forced abortion. Fifth of all, God murdered the Egyptians children to get at them- which is wrong, and contradicts Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20, and Jeremiah 29:31. So many contradictions. Sixth of all, if the fetus doesn't have abrain, it will continue to grow until it is born stillborn. While it's body is composed of living flesh, this will stop once it is born. RESPONSE REGARDING ABORTIONMy oppnent claims that life begins at conception because the bible says so- to refute this, I showed that the bible doesn't consider an unborn embryo to be equal to a baby. In addition to this, the bible is not the word of God but the word of man, {2} and therefore what it says is irrelevant. I have also showed how an embryo doesn't have grey matter, and therefore isn't sentient- this means that aborting it is not murder as it is not a person. {1}. http://www.sikhiwiki.org...{2}. http://www.ushistory.org...
Life does not begin at conception:

THE BIBLEI don't even know how to respond to this- the Qur'an says to murder Non-Muslim's, and that is OK even if my opponent disagrees because the Qur'an says so. How do I know the Qur'an is true- the Qur'an says so! This is the kind of reasoning I am dealing with here folks. MY EXAMPLESFirst of all, the foreskin is not like the umbilical cord- the umbilical cord is not part of a baby, it is a temporary structure which dies after birth, just like placenta- the foreskin on the other hand is a specialized organ which is part of the baby, accounts for half of a males erogenous tissue, has 20,000 nerve endings, and serves many purposes. Second of all, many animals are capable of reasoning- bunny rabbits, monkeys, and sheep have all demonstrated advanced problem solving abilities. RABBITSRabbits are capable of reasoning, and I think that squashing a bunch of newborn bunnies constitutes murder. THE BIBLE AND ABORTIONI don't take the bible seriously, I just thought it interesting that my opponent is trying to say that abortion is murdering babies based on a book which permits both abortion and the murder of babies. Numbers 5:11-12, 15, 21-22:"Then the Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him... then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing... here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries..."Exodus 12:29:"At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock."EMBRYOS ARE NOT BABIESMy opponent's thinking is absurd- if a baby doesn't have a brain, it isn't going to live, neither was it ever alive! It is a body, without a mind. It's like a corpse that was never alive to begin with. Aborting it simply means terminating a failed attempt at creating a baby. It isn't even a fetus. THE BIBLE SAYSYes, it does say that working on saturday is worse than murder, see here. {1} In regard tro circumcision- that you are even justifying this practice is horrifying. The claims that circumcision has health benefits is just quackery. The muslims claim that there are benefits of FGM, {2} and yet if you cut your daughters clitoris out at infancy you would get hauled off to prison, and no one would care if it's easier to clean. Also, circumcision most certainly does affect pleasure, as a matter of fact it destroys 75% of a males ability to feel pleasure. {3}{1}. {2}. https://islamqa.info...{3}. https://www.avoiceformen.com...
Life does not begin at conception:

THE BIBLE SAYS SOMy opponent claims that the bible says that life begins at conception- well, the bible says a lot of things. It says that working on saturday is worse than murder and that yu should hack off half of your newborn babies genitals. Truth be told I learned not to take the bible seriously a long time ago. But regardless, the bible actually says, in Exodus 21:22:“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."Christians can't seem to understand that not everyone believes in their bible, I, for example, am a deist, and my bible is very different from your bible. The deistic bible is the universe, life on earth, and the natural world- this is evidence of our belief, and it is very effective at determining things, for example:Most mammals have fur from head to toe, this is proof that God intended for us to wear clothes. People are born with foreskin, this is proof that God did not intend for us to be circumcised. We were born with brains, this is proof that God intended for us to think or ourselves. So, let's see what my bible says about abortion. It turns out that bunnies are able to have abortions themselves, without taking a pill, if they decide that it is not a good time to have babies. This means that God has no issue with having an abortion if you are not in a good position to have children. SCIENCEMy mom knew a couple where the mother was pregnant with a baby that didnt have a brain- literally, it was a fetus without a brain. So- they aborted it, and this is not murder, because said fetus did not have a mind, and therefore, not a soul. Likewise, a "baby" before 19 or 20 weeks after conception has not yet developed grey matter, {1} and aborting it is thus no different from aborting a baby who does not have a brain. {1}. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...{2}.
Life does not begin at conception:

There is no debate over the fact that a sperm is "alive". There is no debate over the fact that an egg is "alive". Although they do not have the ability to reason, they are living cells. From the moment they merge, the resulting cell is therefore alive. Because the sperm and egg both come from human parents, the cell resulting from their union is a human cell. If it implants in the uterus, it will naturally develop into a fully developed human being barring any mutational or gestational abnormalities. Even with some abnormalities, it can still develop into a functioning, contributing human. Because the united cell is "living", and is "human" from the moment of conception, and because it will naturally develop into a human child, we must allow every protection, and right of a living human, to this cell from the earliest possible time. To do less would be to risk violating the right to life. Thus I submit that taking the life of that child (or set of cells) at any point is the termination of what is a living human child, and will become a functioning part of our human society. That would make the abortion of a pregnancy at any point the murder of the innocent, helpless, fragile life of a human being.
Life does not begin at conception:

1. If an embryo doesn't have a brain, it doesn't have a mind. (given)2. If an embryo doesn't have a mind, it doesn't have a soul. (1)3. If it doesn't have a soul, aborting it is not murder. (2)4. At any point in a pregnancy where the embryo doesn't have a brain, aborting it is not murder. (3)LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION. Life begins when an organism is capable of sentience, before then, abortion is not murder.
Life does not begin at conception:

Apparently, Pro has forgotten the topic of his own debate. He spends almost all his time in this round attacking the validity of the Bible. If he wants to debate the validity of the Bible, he should challenge someone to that debate. As it is, since the Bible is accepted as a valid source in almost any setting, I will continue to cite It as a foundational source for all knowledge. If a fetus has no brain, and continues to grow until it is born, and is then stillborn, then that is a tragic loss. But to take that child's life before it dies of natural causes, I believe and the Bible back me up, is a crime. By almost any medical or biological standard, a child is a living human from the moment of conception (1). The author of the article cited (2) gives many times when different people argue that life begins. I believe that if there is no consensus and no way to "win the debate", that it is incumbent on us to err on the side of the rights of the child and select the earliest possible time. If we choose any later time, and we turn out to be wrong, then the right to life of the child we have just killed has been violated. Thus conception must be held as the beginning of life, and therefore the right to life begins at this time. Meaning that abortion at any point is murder. Resources: 1. http://www.hli.org... 2. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Is Pink Floyd the best band of all time

Anyone can argue that a band is the best band of all time with statements like 'they bring you out of this world and literally into another dimesion' or some other kind of hippie bullsh*t... But the only agreeable measure there is to comparing the greatness of bands is to take tangible numbers about the bands and put them together head to head When it comes to the best selling singles of all time, Pink Floyd doesnt even make the list http://en.wikipedia.org... When it comes to the best albums of all time, Pink FLoyd loses to ACDC, the Bee Gees, Fleetwood Mac, Whitney Houston, and the Eagles http://en.wikipedia.org... When it comes to the highest grossing tours of all time, Pink Floyd loses to U2, Rolling Stone, Madonna, and ACDC http://en.wikipedia.org... And the universal tool for measuring success of bands, best selling music artists, Pink Floyd loses to the Beatles, Elvis, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Led Zepplin, and Elton John http://en.wikipedia.org... So no matter how you measure success, Pink Floyd is not the best band of all time, they come in at around number 5 almost every time
logic is cause and effect

Logic- reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. ) - Google Logic = understanding + reason Reason + Understanding = relation + contrast Reason=/= imagination since reason = true and logic = true So: Poison= Unhealthy (understanding and reasoning) So, unlike apples, you shouldnt eat poison ( relation + contrast) Logic= Therefore, apples are superior to poison memory of logic= logic since before apples= good poison= bad and the same applies nowadays.
logic is cause and effect

logic=/= cause and effect since logic = understanding understanding = relation + contrast So: apple= healthy. It can give you vitamins unlike poison. poison= unhealthy. It is dangerous for the body unlike apples. So, unlike poison, apples are healthy. We are contrasting and comparing the two to understand them. When we understand that, we see that in order to stay healthy, you eat the apple. Now you use logic and eat the apple. I will now be waiting for an argument from my opponent!
why was the universe created (if you want to participate just leave a comment

So to begin my theory is that human kind was created to dominate the earth. the evidence i have for this is the fact that humans are able to invent to better the world. if humans were not created to dominate the earth and be the caretakers then why would we not be like dogs, or cats, or even rabbits. Scientists say that the animal that is the most closely related to the human is the ape yet we see apes in zoos ecause we humans were able to evolve into something better and more creative with the mental capacity to invent. the true power that makes humans better than animals is that humans can invent things to make our world even better. with the invention of the telephone we were able to communicate better. My second piece of evidence is that communication is key. sure animals are able to communicate but are they able to turn the things they communicate about into a reality. if their communication is the sharing of ideas then why arent they able to fulfill those ideas. because they do not 1. have the communication ability to build it and 2. their brains are not even anywhere close to what the human brain capacity is. so with that i open the floor to lannan13
Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod.

So, people are paranoid because it's incredibly likely something will go down? I agree that not everyone should carry a weapon, and I think that if you do, you should know how to use it. The people with guns that aren't idiots aren't just paranoid morons, they're just ready to defend themselves. Now, having said that, your extreme example is still bad. People should be carrying a handgun as a weapon, not something so big they could use it as a weapon if it ran out of ammo. People should be allowed to carry guns, and they should be required to know how to use them if they do. But they should also be able to without being judged as "weak" by people that don't agree with them. How would you know how Ted Cruz is with a gun? My bets are pretty high you haven't seen him use one. And nothing against Bob Dole, but I think Cruz would be able to take the old man if(for some reason) it came to blows.
Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod.

I am not anti-gun, I am anti-idiots with guns, which ever increasingly seems to be the case. The guys that are so afraid of a broken nose, that they needed to carry a 9mm, but have now upgraded to a nice AR. Never seem to find the time to go to the range and practice, but still somehow think their nerves and skill are going to function perfectly allowing them to become the hero of some robbery they broke up (which almost never happens). I should have the right to eat at a restaurant, without some guy in mossy oak next to me with a sidearm and an AR, thinking he might have to be the next Rambo, if something goes down. He may feel safe surrounded by his armory, however, my wife, kids and I do not feel safe eating in such a situation.. Many of these individuals carrying these pieces for "protection", don't have the slightest idea what it means to kill someone, ask any soldier with PTSD. I find it funny that you are not allowed to carry at most gun shows, many NRA meetings and most organized conservative events. Why? Because republican aristocracy knows it's less safe and ludicrous to have everyone with firearms everywhere, but it just wouldn't be good for Browning's sales to tell the public that inconvenient truth. It's also easy to get many republicans fired-up, if you campaign over and over, decade after decade, that the donkey's wants to take your firearm and you just won't be able to protect yourself from the impending tyranny (that's not going to happen) or from the 17 year-old in the hoodie. Sometimes it's just better to give the bad guy in the hoodie the money, and more often then not, everybody lives to fight another day, Goodbye Bob Dole, hello Ted Cruz, I'd trust Bob Dole around a weapon, I doubt Ted Cruz knows much about handling his gold plated piece or how to use his fists. Bob Dole in his wheelchair could still whoop the snot out of Ted Cruz. I stand by my statement, Ted Cruz and those of his ilk, that claim to the saviors of all things that are constitutional, including these pervasive open/concealed carry laws that seem to dominate republican campaigns and ideology make the GOP and their voters appear weak and paranoid.
Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod.

You come off very anti-gun. I apologize for my assumption. Now, to the argument here. Who's to say that someone shouldn't carry a gun to feel safe? It seems to me that someone would be more likely to be able to help a situation, if the need should arise, if they were armed rather than attempting to user their fists to deliver justice. Correct? Sure, there's some people that shouldn't be using guns, but there's always someone that manages to use something they shouldn't. Like a car, for example. Basically, I'm getting that you really just want people to have to undergo proper training in order to carry a gun publicly. That makes perfect sense, yes. We definitely shouldn't let just any old jerk carry around a gun because they want to feel safe. But we shouldn't say that people don't have a right to be safe either. Guns don't(usually) turn people into complete wimps, and people don't usually want guns because they're wimps. It all comes back to safety. Why would you tackle a gunman willing to kill you? It would make a lot more sense for someone that was carrying to actually do something to him. That doesn't make the carrier a wimp, it makes them a logical human being.
Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod.

The debate is to whether or not conceal/open carry causes many GOP voters to appear weak and paranoid. Hence the article I posted about 40 armed guys with rifles outside of a restaurant where 3 ladies threatened to put up an gun control facebook page in texas (how dare they) . There are numerous clips of armed guys with rifles trying to prove a point by eating at a restaurant with their gun in hand. Why, too scared to eat at Denny's without your AR next to you? I'm not anti-gun, I have shot many a guns in my lifetime and have even had one placed to my head in a scrape. I just feel the NRA and these pretend militia, the "don't tread on me" crowd are in actuality weak and paranoid. I would fully support any real militia such as the one lead by John Brown during the Civil War, but he was fighting abolitionism, not running to 7-eleven for a soda pop, a real man should be able to handle that task without the piece. Let's take your argument that a gun is a tool, a deadly tool, but a tool. Well I'll let my three year old have a hammer and a screwdriver. So a gun must be a more dangerous tool than a hammer or screwdriver. Let's say a car and gun are both deadly tools. We require testing and licensing for anyone to be on the road driving a car, not so much with a gun. So if you're 21 years-old, in a 7-eleven, denny's, or just on the street packing your nice glock and let's say you even passed all the checks to get your conceal carry license. Just the moment you knew was guaranteed to happen, you're in the back of a scummy 7-eleven and robber steps to the counter with a hoodie and a sawed off shotgun. What are you really going to do? Shoot the robber and then go shoot his accomplice outside or more likely accidentally shoot the clerk behind the counter. Here's a nice link to a story about an ex-cop that shot a man in a movie theater over a small disagreement. http://www.denverpost.com... How am I supposed to know which individuals are properly trained and have the mental capacity to carry responsibly? Am I to believe that every conceal/open carry individual is safe to carry around my wife or child. I simply do not trust many these carriers to not do the stupid thing. Which is exactly why I don't carry, because although I don't have a criminal record I do rarely have anger management issues.
Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod.

Guns aren't a sign of weakness. Guns aren't a sign of strength. Guns are guns, plain and simple. GOP voters don't want to carry guns because they're too weak to fight, and they don't want to carry them to "look cool". People want to carry guns because guns are useful tools. People don't "want a gun so they can deal with any black teen in a hoodie they see on the street". Our nation has evolved past that, and people that don't think so are racists. People want guns so they can protect themselves from real dangers. It's saddening to see that former conservatives no longer view guns for what they are: tools. What's wrong with wanting to have a weapon when you go to a scummy 7-11? If there's a chance I'll be hurt, I should have the right to protect myself. Would you question someone that wanted a gun to travel the roads of downtown Chicago alone at night? Probably not. That's the kind of things guns are for, not a display of strength, and not to make up for weakness. It's stupid to "settle your disputes in a good scrape". All that does is get you hurt. You shouldn't settle disputes by killing people, but you shouldn't protect yourself from danger with your fists.