BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Judeo-Christian god exists

Contention #1 - The Problem of Evil The problem of evil, made by Epicurus, is outlined here - 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect. 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows where evil takes place. 4. If God is omnipresent, then God is wherever evil is. 5. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. 6. Evil exists. 7. If evil exists and God exists, then either God does not have the power to eliminate all evil, or does not know when evil exists, or does not have the desire to eliminate all evil. Conclusion: Therefore, God doesn't exist. As given by my definition of the Judeo-Christian concept of god, he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. These traits lead to the fact that “God” has the power to eliminate all evil, knows where evil takes place, is wherever evil is, and is obligated to eliminate evil. Evil exists, which means that the Judeo-Christian concept of a “god” does not exist. He cannot exist unless he lacks a quality given in the definition. Now, the only other possible flaw is that “evil” does not exist. However, in the Bible, it clearly says that evil exists including in James 3:16 which is a direct implication. Therefore God cannot exist because of the problem of evil. Contention #2 – The Omnipotence Paradox The omnipotence paradox argues that the concept of an omnipotent “god” in itself is contradictory. A simple question like “Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?” explains how it is contradictory. God can either create a stone which he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he can cease to be omnipotent. If God cannot create a stone which it cannot lift, then it seems it is already not omnipotent. The existence of an omnipotent entity is logically impossible and because God is an omnipotent entity, he cannot exist. Contention #3 – The Problem of Hell The problem of hell, unlike the problem of evil, is a wide spectrum of issues dealing with hell. I would like to first say that the concept of eternal damnation is not compatible with a just God. Human beings have a finite lifespan which means they can only commit a finite number of sins but hell is an infinite punishment. How is that justice? Justice is supposed to be “an eye for an eye” according to the Bible. Therefore, the concept of hell does not fit in with a God who delivers justice. Another issue I would like to talk about is why a merciful God would allow hell to exist. God’s infinite mercy would not allow an eternal cycle of punishment for any sinner. It not only would be cruel but also it would not be Therefore, an omnibenevolent God could not exist if hell existed. However, hell exists according to the Bible, so God cannot exist. These three contentions are simply my opening argument for further arguments and elaborations. Sources – 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://bible.cc... 3. http://www.princeton.edu... 4. http://plato.stanford.edu...
The Judeo-Christian god exists

First of all, both sides have the burden of proof. My opponent must prove that the Judeo-Christian god exists while I must prove that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist. This debate will follow the given setup. If the setup is not followed, it will be an automatic forfeit on the person's part. The first round is simply acceptance, definitions, and the rules. The second round will be simply the opening arguments for the position given. There will be no rebuttals in this round. The third round will be cross-examination only No arguments or rebuttals will be given this round. The fourth round will comprise of simply rebuttals to the former argument and the arguments from cross-examination. The fifth round will be the conclusion and the ending of all arguments. No new arguments will be given. Now, the rules must be followed or it is an automatic forfeit for the person. Sources must be given for each round. There will be no semantics, trolling, or any sort of other misconduct. Second of all, I will be giving the definitions. The Judeo-Christian concept of god is that he is the supreme being with omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and divine simplicity. With that said, we shall begin this debate in round two.
Pro/Con with the use of turbines

Firstly, I would like to clear up a mistake pro clearly made. Pro has said that " fossil fuels destroy the UV rays in the Ozone layer". This is incorrect. The emissions given off by fossil fuels are what cause the Ozone gas in the ozone layer to be destroyed. But this is not what the debate is about. I will provide other, emission-free sources of electricity that are better alternatives to Wind Turbines.Example One: Geothermal Power PlantsGeothermal Power Plants are excellent alternatives to Wind Turbines. They rely on constructive plate boundaries to heat up water sent down to the boundary. Advantages ï¿½It is almost infinite and does not emit CO2. ï¿½There are no by-products, and almost no waste. ï¿½It can be used to power whole cities. For example, Reykjavik, in Iceland, is powered mainly by Geothermal. ï¿½Power stations do not occupy much space, as they do not have any incinerating rooms.It is not a threat to ecosystems or animals. To round off, Geothermal energy is a far better alternative to Wind Power and I shall give other examples in later rounds. I urge the floor to side Opp.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Pro/Con with the use of turbines

Since Pro has not specified the type of turbines that are to be debated about here, I will use the most common example: Wind Turbines. Wind Turbines are not always beneficial to the environment, debunking Pro's opening statement. For example, there have been examples of bird strikes on Wind Turbines, with some estimates for the number of birds killed in the US at 400,000. Offshore Wind Turbines could also disrupt ecosystems in the sea. Wind is also, by nature, very inconsistent and incredibly intermittent. Other types of renewable energy gathering are much more effective and consistent than this. I will state these in the next round. Many people also state that they are not asthetically pleasing and spoil the countryside. All in all, there are many alternative types of energy gathering and Wind Turbines are not the only option. I urge the floor to vote Con. Sources:. http://energyinformative.org...http://www.technologystudent.com...;
Pro/Con with the use of turbines

RebuttalI would like to begin by saying that the following point: "If your geothermal system costs $25,000 you are eligible for a Federal Tax Credit equal to 30% of the cost, or $7500. On top of that there may be utility and state tax credits that can be quite generous. On average, this will knock off another 10% off the cost ($2,500)." Is irrelevant as the link provided talks about solar power, not geothermal. Also, pro did not provide evidence for the following point: "Provides long-term income to farmers and ranchers who own the land on which windfarms are built", So this is also irrelevant. Also, pro has not said how the disadvantages of Geothermal outweigh the benefits. So, onto my second alternative form of energy.Hydropower —Hydro-electric Power, or Hydropower, is the process of acquiring energy through generators turned by the flow of water. This is usually done by colossal dams. Advantages —As it is going to become clear, a huge advantage to all of these Renewable energy sources is that they are almost infinite and do not emit CO2. —Dams can last many decades. —When not in demand, water can be stored to be used to produced electricity at another time. —The reservoir created can be used for a variety of reasons other than electricity generation, such as fishing and watersports, providing a valuable asset to the community. So to round off, I have provided many alternatives to Wind Power, stated why it is not beneficial, which Pro has not sufficiently rebutted, and not to mention the fact that most of Pro's last argument was plagiarised. I urge the floor to vote Con. Sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org...
Pro/Con with the use of turbines

Wind generators are proved technology. Denmark currently receives over 20% of its electricity from wind energy. Provides long-term income to farmers and ranchers who own the land on which windfarms are built If your geothermal system costs $25,000 you are eligible for a Federal Tax Credit equal to 30% of the cost, or $7500. On top of that there may be utility and state tax credits that can be quite generous. On average, this will knock off another 10% off the cost ($2,500). http://www.sunrun.com... 1. Not Widespread Source of Energy : Since this type of energy is not widely used therefore the unavailability of equipment, staff, infrastructure, training pose hindrance to the installation of geothermal plants across the globe. Not enough skilled manpower and availability of suitable build location pose serious problem in adopting geothermal energy globally. 2. High Installation Costs : To get geothermal energy, requires installation of power plants, to get steam from deep within the earth and this require huge one time investment and require to hire a certified installer and skilled staff needs to be recruited and relocated to plant location. Moreover, electricity towers, stations need to set up to move the power from geothermal plant to consumer. 3. Can Run Out Of Steam : Geothermal sites can run out of steam over a period of time due to drop in temperature or if too much water is injected to cool the rocks and this may result huge loss for the companies which have invested heavily in these plants. Due to this factor, companies have to do extensive initial research before setting up the plant. http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... Wind power works I've seen one in real life I seen nothing wrong. Its a good way for electricity and if you get more than enough power the electric company pays farmers who put there turbines up.
In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

Felons are as culpable for their actions as they are as culpable for their mistreatment" Value: I accept the value for this debate as Justice Value Criterion: Retribution will be my value criterion for this debate. In order for justice to be maintained, some form of retribution must be applied for society to fall into order. Whenever an individual acts in an unlawful way, actions must be taken to balance out the spectrum in order to maintain justice. Contentions: 1. Maintaining order In order to maintain order, some action must be done to balance out the unlawful actions that have taken place. Without some form of retribution, society would be essentially condoning felony. Our nation would devolve into chaos and despair, something as a society we are morally obliged to avoid. 2. Social Contract The social contract, stated by John Locke, states that the people forfeit some rights to government in order to secure more rights. It also states that when an individual violates the rights of others within this government, it is the peoples and government's responsibility to act against said individual. One right violation (that of life, which is needed to utilize all other rights) allows another right violation (disenfranchisement) to exist. This retribution is needed in order to sustain order. Now I will rebut my opponent's case. Value: I have accepted his value Criterion: The preservation of Democracy does not maintain proper justice. Some action needs to be taken in order to insure that the actions of the felon are not condoned by society. 1st Contention: Racism does not exist in government. Racism does not exist, because the term in itself is a contradiction to reality and itself. The term is a contradiction to itself because by calling another person racist, you are in a sense racist yourself, unless you abide by the double standard that is held upon whites in America, in which every race beside Caucasian is allowed to utilize the "race card". The term also is a contradiction to reality because humans, by nature, are designed and tend to form into groups. This forces generalizations to be applied, so calling someone a racist for applying generalizations is against humanity. The reason that most felons are black is the same reason that most criminals are black. This does not in any way make the act of disenfranchisement immoral or unjust. 2nd Contention: The United Nations does not hold any ruling or reign over America. We are a sovereign nation and should focus on how this affects America domestically, because other nations are in a completely different status quo. The act of disenfranchisement does not restrict the democratic process because the lack of a felon vote is negligible on society, and they also still do not deserve a vote. 3rd Contention: Again, this issue has no pertinence to other countries because, for one, this resolution is based on purely a democratic society, and two, their status quo differs from ours. Conclusion: Because re-enfranchising criminals would be unjust and would not fair well for a society as a whole, felons should stripped of the right to vote.
The god of the Bible is clearly misogynistic.

With all do respect, I disagree. Indeed, the bible does depict god as being a misogynist, though this does not mean that he was. Instead, those who documented the bible over the years inserted messages of misogyny and wrote him in such light. The bible is not at all the reason for misogyny and patriarchal attitudes in our modern society, as even before the bible we can see examples of a male dominated society. It is that which allowed this tinting of god's character, and not the other way around.
The god of the Bible is clearly misogynistic.

I first want to point out that this is my first time using this website and I accidentally used what I intended as a more detailed description as my opening argument, so my apologies. In response to your first rebuttal I feel compelled to point out that you did not rebut my argument at all but agreed with it. You said, "the bible does depict god as being a misogynist." You then say that the Bible has been tampered with and changed through the years. The issue of rather or not the books of the Bible has been changed is not under consideration in this debate, but I do concede that they agree they have. Also, the topic is not if we personally think god is a misogynist. The proposition I am supporting clearly states that the "god of the Bible" is ascribed this characteristic. To show that the Bible clearly ascribes this characteristic to god and by extension his followers consider the following biblical principles. 1.The bible treats the normal biological functions of women as being inherently unclean (cf. Lev. 12:2-3; 15:9-33). 2.The bible says that women should subject themselves to men (I Tim. 2:11-14; Eph. 5:22-24; I Pet. 3:1-6). 3.The bible even uses women to be symbolic of evil (Zech. 5:5-11; Rev. 17). I want to also point out that I did not claim that all misogyny in western culture is the fault of the bible. I said that it had "contributed" to it. This means that it is only one part of the cause of this misogyny. I don"t know how much of the part it is, but I do contend that it is a part that needs to be addressed. The Bible has given misogynist the supposed moral authority to keep women subservient for millennium. When any one questions the legitimacy of our patriarchal system we need only point to the Bible and say that"s the way God wants it. If indeed there is a god (a proposition I reject), then we have to question his moral authority when he so clearly promotes sexual inequality.
Professional Athletes Get Paid Too Much (compared to other occupations in society)

Being a doctor or lawyer is extremely easy compared to the road to being an athlete. You can decide to be a doctor or lawyer when you're in college and study extremely hard. However, if you decide to become a professional athlete when you're in high school and practice extremely hard, your chances in percentage don't even go to two digits. I would like to tell something to my audience. Pro's opinions about whether or not he thinks athletes get paid too much does not matter. He says it's unfair and an abomination that doctors and lawyers get paid less. I would like Pro to tell me why. Doctors and lawyers get paid that amount of money because they only appeal to the number of patients they treat where professional athletes get paid because they appeal to the number of fans they have. Yes, I agree with Pro, let's look at this debate. We are talking about whether or not athletes get paid too much. They might get paid a lot but that doesn't mean it's too much. Con states that doctors have to manage from 1400 patients to 1700 in about 210 days per year which is beyond hard work. If he wants to bring out the topic of hard work, then he will definitely lose. To become a doctor, you just require the average of 25 years of complete and thorough study and then after you get a job as a doctor, you are home free and don't need to do anything else but your job. He states that it's hard but professional athletes have to train everyday ever since they could walk and even after they get hired to play for a team, they have to train a lot everyday with an extremely strict diet. I did not state that it is eay to become a doctor/lawyer, I simply compared the competition of those two jobs to being a professional athlete. According to . http://www.bls.gov...;, professional athletes train about 40 hours a week which is roughly 6 hrs a day. If you don't think that's hard, then I don't know what is I did not say athletes deserve that money. However, we are debating this topic by looking at why they do get the money in general. Nobody is willing to pay hospitals thousands of dollars just for getting their legs fixed or recieving a heart transplant. But it's mandatory because they demand it. On the other hand, nobody is forcing the fans to come to watch the games of the athletes. But they do because they enjoy it. Just like the money that the hospitals recieve from the mandatory demands goes to the doctors, the money that the fans are willing to pay, goes to the athletes. It's only fair. Pro concludes by telling the audience to vote by looking within what the audience feels. However, this is a debate on who has better arguments and better rebuttals. His conclusion has no relevance to any of his contentions and tries to persuade the audience with a mere pathos. With that having been said, I urge pro to summon his final and concluding words.
Professional Athletes Get Paid Too Much (compared to other occupations in society)

Thank you to Con for finally responding. I will like to point out that I stated that I believe in Communism because my view point is of a Communist. Maybe since Con lives in a Capitalist society & maybe agrees with the way of the lifestyle I do not. The U.S.A economic society priorities are really messed up but that's just my opinion. REBUTTAL 1. First and foremost I would like to say that Con made an incorrect remark when he said I ignore the hard training an athlete goes through. He should look to paragraph one my first sentence states " Athletes go through vigorous training and we all would have to accept that it is hard." Con stated that the competition is more tough for athletes then doctor's and lawyer's. Which is totally incorrect. Let's look at what the debate is about. Professional Athlete's Get Paid Too Much ( compared to other jobs in society ) which no one not even my opponent can deny. I believe it is unfair and an abomination that doctors & lawyers get paid less. Also we can see that in average a Doctor can manage from 1,400 patients to 1,700 in about 210 days per year. Which is beyond hard work. Also I would like to point out that Con should look more into his country and the economic troubles we are going through. Thousands if not millions of doctor's lawyers, nurses etc. have lost their jobs & Con is stating that it easy to get a job in this competing society? I believe he has no base what so ever in the Rebuttal that he presented for me in paragraph one. To become a lawyer is extremely hard and I would like to point out that a lawyer money depends upon the citizens of the country and whenever they may have a trouble they will go to a Lawyer. Now if you are a District Attorney or a Prosecutor who works strictly for the government then you have a strict salary. 2. I would say that it is true an athletes salary depends upon his fan base but I dislike how he said they deserve the money they get paid, which they do not. You seriously believe that an athlete should get paid millions for playing a three to four game a few times a week? Then a doctors works daily from six to eight hours (on average) and do not get paid what they truly deserve. Also he said a doctor receives the money from their audience. This is not always true when they work for a hospital they can serve a hundred patients and still get paid the same as if they took care of only one patient. http://www.aafp.org... CONCLUSION I ask the audience that will look at this debate, to realize the obvious that athletes do not deserve what they get paid. Doctors and lawyers protect Con's way of life as well as mine and yours. Athletes just entertain us when we're bored not such an important job to society. Yet when you get sick you go to a doctor and he/she secures you can see the light of another day. As well as a lawyer ensures when a crime is committed that justice is served. Justice that only they can give to us. Vote for who you know is correct... Thank You to Con & the audience.
Professional Athletes Get Paid Too Much (compared to other occupations in society)

I sincerely apologize to my audience and my opponent for such a late replyI don not know why pro stated that he supports communism because that does not have anything to do is topic since we live in a democratic society and therefore, it does not matter if my opponent supports communismREBUTTAL1. Pro tried to compare the amount of time and vigorous training of doctors and lawyers to the vigorous training of professional athletes. However, he totally ignored the amount of training an athlete must go through. He states that it takes a doctor 8-12 years for them to start a living off of being a doctor. There are thousands if not millions of hospitals out there in the world that you can apply a job for and as long as you correctly went through the 8-12 years of studying in a university, then you are almost sure to get a job as a doctor or a nurse. Same as a lawyer. There are infinite amounts of jobs available for them. However, in sports, the number of spots available is very limited. What I am trying to prove in the rebuttal is the fact that, although professional athletes have a high salary/income, the competition is much more tough2. We live in a capitalistic society. Under capitalism, a person is paid capital slightly less than the profit that the employer thinks he will receive upon hiring the employee. Such is the exact same with sports [1].The audience for the professional athletes are much greater than for doctors and lawyers. A doctor/ lawyer receives the amount of money they get because of the audience they appeal to for example, patients. Same with professional athletes, the audience they appeal to are willing to pay to watch them play and therefore, they deserve that amount of money.To conclude, or make my final argument, because most of the countries in the world live by a capitalistic economy, the athletes deserve the amount of money they makeVote Con1.http://www.buzzle.com...
Professional Athletes Get Paid Too Much (compared to other occupations in society)

ResolvedProfessional Athletes Get Paid Too MuchTermsProfessional: engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastimeAthlete: a person who is proficient in sports and other forms of physical exercise.As Con, I just need to prove that Professional athletes deserve what they get paid.Pro must prove that the salaries of professional athletes are unfair compared to other jobs in societyI will allow the challenger to post his arguments first