BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Since lust is a sin God cannot be both Omniscient and Omnibenevolent

I have used this same argument before and will use it again. I see no reason not to do so.If I wrongfully lust upon a woman this is considered a sin, but does God know what it feels like for one human to lust after another? Due to the fact that God is omniscient, he knows everything there is to know, meaning that he does know this feeling. Now if he knows what lust feels like than logically he must have experienced it at some point in time, and, since lust is described as sin, this means that he cannot be omnibenevolent due to his own law.On the otherhand if he, in fact, does not know what lust feels like he cannot be omniscient.
Since lust is a sin God cannot be both Omniscient and Omnibenevolent

This debate originally was for LifeMeansGodIsGood, but due to the fact he has neither accepted nor denied my request I am leaving it open for anyone who wishes to participate. These are the criteria for my opponent: He recognizes lust is a sin He recognizes God is all-knowing He recognizes God is all-good Good luck to my opponent if you accept this challenge and please no swearing or insults.
The United States is a Christian Nation

I accept. I also negate the resolution that the United States is a Christin nation. *Thesis* The United States is not a Christian nation because of the melting pot of America and the influences of other cultures and ethnic groups, such as on-Christian calendar holidays, the U.S.A's refusal to choose a religion on a national basis, and the establishment of the 1st Amendment, which gives Americans the freedom of religion. I would also like to bring up the law of the separation of church and state and Thomas Jefferson writing to the Danbury Baptists, saying "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." I will refer to this as needed and provide a works cited page at the bottom of my debate as needed.
The United States is a Christian Nation

I did this debate awhile back, but I was completely disappointed at how my opponent handled the topic. Con assumed a very passive stance and basically just threw out a set of possibilities as proofs. It is for this reason that I want Con to build up an argument contra the topic as well as rebutting my own. I will build up an argument for the topic and rebut Con's. In this manner, the burden of proof is shared.Definitions:The term "United States" ought to be viewed as the umbrella term referring to the federal government, the state government, and founding documents.Thesis: The United States federal government, state governments, and founding documents were heavily influenced by Christianity and its basic tenets and is thus a Christian Nation. As Pro, I will defend the resolution by making it clear that the Founders and important founding documents support the idea of the United States being molded by Christianity. As Justice Brewer once said, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.”First round is for acceptance and laying out the basic thesis of your arguments, as I did above. No new information may be presented in the last round.
An Omniscient God and Human Free Will are Incompatible

Reiteration Pro repeats an argument which I already responded to. His argument can be summarized with the following: P1. Necessarily, if God foreknows X, then X will happen. P2. God foreknows X. C1. Therefore, X will necessarily happen. However, I already spent my entire Round 2 showing why this argument was flawed. I will reiterate my response. The problem with this argument is that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. As stated earlier, the conclusion begs the question as to whether foreknowledge causes actions (as opposed to actions causing foreknowledge) and whether actions are necessary because of foreknowledge. Since the argument begs whether these two things are true, it is necessary that Pro prove these statements in order that his argument be true. Simply put, Pro at no point argued in favor of these and therefore loses this debate since he failed to uphold his burden of proof. Besides my opponent failing to argue in favor of the syllogism he uses (which alone wins me the debate since he has the BOP), I provided arguments against the syllogism. I argued that by definition of future, which is what will come to be, it is more reasonable that actions cause the future. That is, whatever action X is determines future Y. So if action X is that I will choose a coke, then future Y is that I will choose a coke. However, if action X is that I will choose a Pepsi, then future Y is that I will choose a Pepsi. The point is that action X is not necessary, and can follow to be any action since actions cause the future, not the future causing actions. Why I Win Pro failed to uphold his burden of proof. He had to prove that foreknowledge causes actions and that actions are necessary because of foreknowledge; he failed to prove either and therefore loses. In addition to that though, I also provided arguments against him which he too failed to give a proper rebuttal to. Thank you Pro for this debate. Please remember to post "no round as agreed upon" in your next response since you do not get a final argument as per the rules.
An Omniscient God and Human Free Will are Incompatible

I have not disputed the definition of free will. I have merely clarified part of the definition you gave. There is no context for free will yet as I am the one starting the debate arguments. Therefore I a use the context of the first argument in this debate (mine) to better define any words that are not yet put into context.In actuality, Con is attacking my definition of contingient and trying to change. Violating his OWN rule. We do not need to know if foreknowledge causes action, or if those actions are necessary because of foreknowledge. Neither of these questions apply to this debate.Pro has stated the Omniscient God knows every event in the future. He knows every decision we will make. In the coin flip scenario, you are correct, you do not have a choice on what the quarter lands on. However, my definition does not fail.Con is trying to make you assume my definition of chance states that we can make a mid-air decision on which side of the coin will land face up. This is wildly innacurate. Here is how the scenario needs to interpretted for this debate context.You flip a coin. Your decision was to flip that coin. God knows you are when you are going to flip the coin. Your "choice" to flip the coin does not have any chance in it because God knew you would flip it. The outcome of which side lands face up is irelevant to this debate. Your concious choice is to flip the coin, not choose the outcome. Trying to state you have any concious decision in the outcome is absurd.Therefore my definition of contigient clearly stands as the first argument of the debate showed the context of the word, and your example failed to refute it.In the Coke/Pepsi scenario, if you choose Coke, and then decide to drink half, put it back, and then drink half of the Pepsi, God knows this will happen. He knows every time you will "change your mind" because he has all knowledge of the future.My opponent has failed to refute my argument, as the choices we make are not contingent, thus not allowed free will to be compatible with an Omniscient God.
An Omniscient God and Human Free Will are Incompatible

Thank you for inviting me to take part in this debate. I am arguing that since God IS Omniscient, Human free will is not possible.To Reiterate. Free Will - The ability to make a conscious and contingent decision. Omniscience - Having complete and total knowledge. In regards to time it would also mean possessing all knowledge of both past, present, and future. *Contingent - subject to chance [1]God, by being Omniscient, has perfect foreknowledge of every event in the past, present, and future. He knows everything we have done and will do with 100% accuracy.While I agree we make conscious decisions, these decisions are not contingent as there is no chance to them. Everything we do is already known by God. Chance no longer exists if the outcome is known (by God). As contingency is a prerequisite for Free Will, it cannot truly exist, or be compatible, with an Omniscient God.This argument alone proves the incompatibility of an Omniscient God and Free Will.[1] https://www.google.com...
An Omniscient God and Human Free Will are Incompatible

FrameworkThis is a debate about God, and the concept of foreknowledge and how it relates to free will. I will be defending that free will and omniscience are compatible, that is that they can both exist without contradiction. My opponent will be arguing they are incompatible, that is that they cannot both exist without contradiction. My opponent will have the burden of proof in this debate since he is attacking a proposition and since he is arguing against the status quo. Rules1. This debate should be impossible to accept. If anyone finds a way to accept this without my permission it will result in a full forfeit of my opponent. 2. First round is not for acceptance. Whoever accepts this must post their argument in Round 1, and not post anything in the final round. 3. Definitions will be used in context of the debate. 4. No Kritiks. It may be tempting to call a kritik on "free will," but that is not permissable by any means. Free will, like all definitions are to be used in context of the debate resolution. 5. Standard conduct applies. This is a serious debates; no trolling. 6. 7 Point Voting System and a minimum ELO of 2000 to vote. DefinitionsFree Will - The ability to make a conscious and contingent decision. Omniscience - Having complete and total knowledge. In regards to time it would also mean posessing all knowledge of both past, present, and future. God - For the sake of this debate God does not need to be strictly defined. All that needs to be defined is that God is a conscious being that is omniscient.
Dogs do deserve it!!!

Well if your friends and or boyfriend come over alot then the dog will know them so it wouldnt bite them and i think dogs should be allowed to bite because they need to protect themselves from the wicked people in the world thus people who think dogs should be put down for biting are wicked people well most of them anyway im not saying you are or anything but some people just say oh they bit me time to put them down ever heard the saying three strikes youre out well i think it applies to dogs to give them a few chances if they do it more than once than put it outside when your friends are over or take it to obediance school.
Dogs do deserve it!!!

Dogs do deserve this because what if your best friend never comes over. You could always go to their house and never have them come over. OR you have a boyfriend and its the first time or maybe even the 10th time the dog meets him the dog could just not like the person so yea the dogs does derserve it if they bite. My aunt had a chihuahua named Peanut she was 5 years old and Peanut loved me and would protect me. Well one day Peanut was on my lap while I was sleeping, Peanut was awake my aunt went to wake me up. Then Peanut bit my aunt on the nose and my aunt had her put down. Thats why you never know when to trust a dog!!!
religion in government, america is a christian nation

My opponent makes two points; I will address them and make points of my own in this last round left. Rebuttal 1: UnconstitutionalIt may be unconstitutional for the Government to endorse (or restrict) a religion, but this does not prevent the individuals in the Government from using their religion as a basis for their decision making. In fact, if one is true to their religion, it should almost be impossible for one to make a decision that requires moral consideration without looking to religion. I am, of course, refrencing the "religion in government" aspect of the title. If the title was more like "religion is government," referencing a theocracy or a similar government, then the Establishment cause could take effect. If the Government endorsed a particular religion or threw Christianity upon non-Christians, then you would be correct. But we cannot assume there is no "religion in government," because there are several politicians and lawmakers who look to their faith for moral guidance in decision-making. Rebuttal 2: References to GodI assume this half of the argument refers to the "America is a Christian nation" aspect of the title. My opponent is correct in stating that the Constitution has no direct references to God, Allah, or other deities (the famous Article 1, Section 7 exclusion of Sundays may be a Christian reference). However, there are several examples of official American documents that do reference Christian mythology. Examples:The Declaration of Independence - my opponent actually alluded to this, with his admittance of "not the declaration" in his argument 2 above. The Declaration of Independence is the document that literally founded America. It may not set up the Government, but we are not arguing whether the Constitution is Christian, we are arguing about America. The Declaration of Indepdence, then, is important to consider. The Declaration includes phrases such as "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them. "Federalist Papers - Some of the Founding Fathers even admitted that America was a Christian nation, or at least, was founded upon Christianity. For example, in Federalist No. 2, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay wrote, in reference to America, "a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion. " Currency - "In God We Trust. "As you can see, although religious freedom is completely certain, the Founding Fathers not only dated their documents with "In the Year of Our Lord," but filled them with references to Christianity, direct or indirect. America is founded on Christianity, though it establishes freedom of religion.
religion in government, america is a christian nation

thanks for accepting, burden of proof is equal on both sides, as we are both making claims abut society.I shall make my argument in a number of parts 1) it is unconstitutional for government to endorse religion explicitly or implicitly. evidence A) establishment clause of the bill of rights evidence B) various supreme court cases' interpretation of the establishment clause http://law2.umkc.edu...2) our constitution (not the declaration) contains no explicit or implicit references to God, Jesus, Allah or any other entity evidence A) The constitution http://www.archives.gov...
The Electoral College

Note: Contender is debating against the preservation of the electoral collegeTermsElectoral College(in the US) a body of people representing the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president. Preservedmaintain (something) in its original or existing state. Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No "K's" on the topic.9. All citations should be links, and may not be hidden behind a login10. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debateDebate FormatR1: Con AcceptsR2: Pro Arguments.
The Electoral College

DefenceContention 1Con’s argument about democratic principles does not work. We are not a complete democracy, so we do not need to follow each ideal of democracy. If we compare the breaking of an principle to an oppressed minority I think it is painfully obvious what we should support. On my claim on the senate, I included that argument to show that not everything in our government follows the democratic ideals. This does not make it a red herring. Con also claims that my analogy falls flat, but using his logic it would not matter what the senate does, it still breaks the democratic ideal of equal representation. Contention 2The reason that there are a majority of undecided voters in the US is because of the electoral college. In a popular vote system, the democratic candidate could campaign solely to the coasts and win the White House, and the republican candidate could do the same in the South and Midwest. The candidates would pander to certain groups, dividing the populace as a whole. Our current system forces candidates to be moderate, representing all Americans.Contention 3Con claimed that I conceded this point when I said that the US was a liberal democracy. The point of this contention was to prove that pure democracy was not ideal. By stating that the US was a liberal democracy and a constitutional republic I have not conceded anything. A pure democracy is not good. Contention 4Con’s refutation of this point is weak. He claims that the election would still be in hold of local authorities, but If this was a popular vote system there would be no point in the election being in hold of these authorities. We commonly refer to it as eliminating the middleman. Under the electoral college there is a regional subdivision, which makes it easier to isolate a problem. Under the popular vote, the entire population would vote directly for president, and the entire country would work as a whole.RebuttalsR1 Swing States"The Pro also cited a primary election stop in California by Donald Trump, however, that stop is not relevant to the debate being had at all. "It is relevant, because California is considered a blue solid state. Under Con’s logic there would be no point in Trump campaigning there.R3 Limited Choice"The Pro claims that “winner take all” is not written in law, however, this is blatantly false."If this was so “blatantly false”, why did Con not link a law. In his defence Con does to explain how states parcel out votes in a winner take all fashion. I never said that states did not, I just said that it was not written in a legal document. Con has not provided a document with this written in it because there isn’t one.
The Electoral College

Swing StatesA. Of course swing states are not ideal, but are they really as bad as Con makes them out to be? If we look at voter statistics in swing states, then we can see that swing states also have advantages.B. If we look into the voter composition of the voters in swing states you can see that the composition is much more equal than other states(1). If we look at wisconsin, you can see that 48% of votes went to Donald Trump and 47% to Hillary Clinton in this latest election(2). You guys can explore that map more if you wish, but my point is that the parties are very balanced in these states. Every vote in these states matter, so as a result the candidates will try to appeal to people of both parties. This leads to less extreme candidates.C. Voter turnout in swing state is higher than non-swing states. People in swing state have a higher political education, because they know their vote counts. These are both advantages of swing states. In conclusion, swing states may not be great, but they have their advantages. No system is perfectInfluenceA. A major point of my opponents is the fact that the electoral college causes an inequality in voting. This is true, but this inequality causes higher voter turnout and higher political education which I presented in my first argument in this round. This influence does not demonstrate a lower voter turnout in other states, so it can’t be bad. B. “This inequality of influence is a clear violation of the basic democratic principle of equal influence in government.” Another basic principle of democracy is being ruled completely by the people, which of course, is not our government. In a democracy the people decide everything, from the smallest law to decleration of war. We are not a perfect democracy.Solid StatesA. States are not as solid as people may think. I currently live in Texas. Texas is considered to be one of the reddest state out there. In this recent election Texas was not as red as people may believe, with Hillary winning 43% of the votes.B. The voters in solid states such as California are primarily democratic, so if california goes to the democratic party a majority of the population will be celebrating. The populations in these solid states prefer one party, and we cannot blame the electoral college for this.3rd PartyA. in this last lection 3rd party candidates won less than 5% of the popular vote, so even if we were operating under a different system the fate of a third party would not change.Citations1. http://www.politico.com...2. http://www.politico.com...3.http://www.usatoday.com...4.http://www.nytimes.com...
The Electoral College

Contention 1: Swing StatesPerhaps the biggest and most glaring issue with the electoral college is the fact that it leads to the creation of swing states. Swing states are states in which there is greater partisan competition, thus the races in these states are the most competitive and are the deciding states in the election. The problem with this is that it gives certain states (like Ohio, Florida, and Pensylvania) greater sway in the election and thus candidates spend most of their time and resources in these states, and they will tailor their policies and their message to appeal to voters in these states. This all comes at the expense of the approximately 40 other states, which are effectively ignored by candidates as a result.Contention 2: Inequality of InfluenceAs mentioned in contention 1, the creation of swing states as a result of the electoral college grants more influence to certain states, and subsequently the voters in those states. Swing states compose approximately 18% of the US population, meaning that this small minority of voters has exponentially more influence than the remaining 82% of voters. This inequality of influence is a clear violation of the basic democratic principle of equal influence in government. As a democratic republic, it is imperative that the US upholds these principles.In addition, the simple voter to elector ratio is skewed in a way which makes a single vote in that state more impactful than a vote in another state. This means that fewer people again have a greater amount of influence of the presidency.Contention 3: Limits Choices and Harms 3rd PartiesThe electoral college plays a major role in maintaining the two party system. This is because all but 2 states elect their electors in a winner take all manner, meaning a candidate only needs to win a simple majority in order to win all of the electors. In solid states like Kansas (my home state) any vote which is not for a Republican is effectively meaningless, as the result in Kansas is practically a bygone conclusion. This particularly hurts third parties, as people feel they are more obligated to vote for the candidate who is likely to do second best to increase that candidate's chances. This limits the options and the span of the debate in politics.SolutionsAs the topic of this debate is the preservation of the electoral college, I will be focusing more on the problems in the electoral college as it currently exists. I will, however, provide two possible alternatives to the status quo. The first is the most obvious: Direct election of the president. This is a very obvious solution and to many makes the most sense. Alternatively, the electoral college could be preserved, and make the electors proportionally elected, rather than winner take all, so the electors would better represent the will of the voters in each state.Sourceshttp://fivethirtyeight.com...http://www.cnn.com...https://www.washingtonpost.com...https://www.uscis.gov...http://www.usnews.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...