BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The God of the Bible is mostly evil.

My opponent's basic argument that God is evil is that he condones and sometimes orders instances of: Rape, murder, and slavery. I, for the sake of this debate, will not deny that God ordered any of these things. I will however ask my opponent what moral code he is referring to when he says that evil is "deliberately violating some moral code". If my opponent is arguing from a subjectivist position I will ask if it is from an individual subjectivist position, in which case my opinion is as good as his and the fact that I may say that slavery, murder, and rape are morally good would make them good. This would simply cancel out my opponent's claims and make this debate a boring stalemate. If my opponent is arguing from an inter-subjectivist position then it is the community at large that decides the validity of any moral statement and in that case my opponent automatically loses seeing as most of the Western world believes that the Christian god is the pillar of moral goodness. If my opponent is arguing from an objective standpoint then the very fact that we are assuming the Christian God exists proves my case seeing as God is by definition the pillar of moral goodness and the creator of morality. I will ask my opponent to first take a meta-ethical stance so that we may begin arguing seeing as right now I do not know why my opponent specifically believes that rape, murder, and slavery are wrong and thus have no way of arguing against it.
The God of the Bible is mostly evil.

Following the rules set forth by my opponent I will not argue in this round. However I think we should define the God that we will be debating on so as to keep confusion to a minimum. According to the resolution, my opponent and I will be debating on the moral goodness or lack of goodness of the God of the Bible. We may define the God of the Bible as: The God described in the Old and New Testaments as the creator of the world, omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent who interacts in human affairs in the form of answering prayers and performing miracles. For this debate my opponent and I will be assuming the existence of God.
War Game scenario:Russia versus chosen Nation

I ask the honorable judges not take points off my opponent. Due to lack of actions on my opponent"s argument, I"ll make mine short to be fair. Ural Line: 500,000 recruits with 2,000 tanks (1,500 Type 96s, 100 Type 99s, 400 Type 99B3*), 1,000 aircrafts, and 100,000 tons of other supplies transported via new railroad. The Ural Line defenders will be on full defensive and ready to attack within 2 months. Eastern Front: 100,000 recruits with 900 tanks, (700 Type 96s, 100 Type 99s, 100 Type 99B3), 400 aircrafts, and 50,000 tons supplies via new railroad. The Shenyang Army will be ready to attack within 1 months and on full defensive. Kazakhstan: Then tension between Kazakhstan and Russia grew, but not strong enough to start a war. The Chinese troops in the country began to train the Kazakh conscript, readying to attack. All of the training will be carried out in secret and at a rural area. Kazakh are also given licence to produce MBT-2000s and VT-1s. Navy: The Offensive Fleet had now grown. It has 2 new Type 056 ships, a new Type 052 ships, and a new Type 094 ballistic missile submarine. The submarine will be using non-nuclear missile. 4 ships will be servicing along with the Offensive Fleet within 5 months. Meanwhile, the Offensive Fleet"s submarine fleet began a battle with the Russian submarines(20). With the help of the surface fleet, the Russian fleet had been crippled, but the Chinese fleet had also been heavily damaged. Battle of Okhotsk: Chinese casualties: 10 submarines, 1 corvette, 2 destroyers. Damaged: Liaoning had been damaged from the fire. It"s still serviceable. Russian casualties: 13 submarines, 2 destroyers, 1 cruisers. The Russian fleet may had been crippled, but they still controls the Northern Pacific. The Offensive Fleet will be temporarily be docked at Japan ($1 million dollar per month) until further operation. Diplomacy: Russia had been heavily criticized for its lack of response to the peace proposal. The German chancellor, Merkel said " The Russian government is not taking care of its citizens, its soldiers." The Western world are considering another economic sanctions on Russia to pressure them to accept the proposal though it might be highly unlikely. Meanwhile China is improving relations with US, sending the students, then sending the president"s daughter to US. This is it my audience. I now await the Russian"s response...
War Game scenario:Russia versus chosen Nation

I accept. I will choose the People"s Republic of China as chosen nation. Here"s how I"ll divide my troops. Shenyang:500,000 Beijing: 400,000. Jinan: 100,000 Nanjing: 200,000 Guangzhou:100,000 Chengdu: 100,000 Lanzhou: 885,000. Military personnel: 2,285,000 Tank: 9,150 Aircraft:2,788 Navy: 520 Defence Budget: $126,000,000,000 (Maybe higher) My ally will be Kazakstan, who will fight for China as long they get the oil rich Siberia in return. Kazakhstan Army Military Personnel: 110,000 Tank: 300 Aircraft: 232 Navy: 15 Defence budget: $2,435,000,000 Chemical weapon: Chlorine Gas. All troops will be ready to attack by February 15th. Third Department of China are also ready for cyber warfare. Your turn....Mother Russia.
The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers.

Pro's central thesis is "Qualified immunity violates the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness established by the Declaration of Independence, thus qualified immunity ought to be limited." Why is the American government morally obligated to uphold life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The only justification that Pro gives is the Declaration of Independence, a legally irrelevant document. The supreme law of America is the United States Constitution, not the Declaration, thus the Constitution should be prominent in any legal debate. The United States is a Republic, a republic is a nation ruled by laws, and the supreme law is the United States Constitution. In our government, the ones who are tasked with the Constitutionality of laws is the Supreme Court of the United States, and in 1982 the Supreme Court created Qualified Immunity in Harlow v. Fitzgerald. Pro is advocating for the overturning of this Supreme Court based on it being antithetical to the values of the Declaration which has previously been proven irrelevant and has failed to prove why we should adhere to the Enlightenment values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I, however, advocate for Qualified Immunity because it was declared Constitutional and thus law by the Supreme Court. Since the United States is a republic we live under the rule of law and this law must be enforced by law enforcement, also known as the police. The purpose of Qualified Immunity is so police can enforce the law more effectively without fear of legal charges, which ensures the safety of civilians in the majority of cases. https://leb.fbi.gov... I hold that the legal precedent of Qualified Immunity should be upheld as it was declared Constitutional by the SCOTUS and helps law enforcement be more effective in protecting the people.
The Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Pro made a debate with a strict set of rules, and I accepted the debate. Upon reading the debate I noticed a false-dichotomy, then I noticed the rules again. The reason the debate could not be continued after the fallacy was because this debate was based on the assumpion that certain rules were to be followed. Since they were not, then how can we say we are engaged in the same debate outlined? Either way, like I said, I engage in debates that clearly show I do not care about my record, so I am not trying to get a "cheap" win here (the people may even take Pro's side on this, who knows). I will gladly debate this topic with Pro, as I have debated with him before. However, they have to be under better terms because it is too easy to conjur up fallacies by accident in a debate. If you play a game of Chess and someone moves a pawn like a knight, that means that either they forfeit the game or we start the game over because someone messed up. However, we cannot just "reset" this debate once it has started. Thus, the only reasonable response is an automatic forfeit.
The Cosmological Argument Is Sound

"No. I didn't elaborate as to what it would mean by breaking a specific rule. Would this mean that if you or I swore, we would automatically lose the debate?"Yes it does. Our debate was based on a strict set of rules. Once a rule is broken, we aren't engaged in the same debate outlined. Thus, you forfeit. "Of course not. It would mean a loss of conduct points, if addressed but still continued." No, you forfiet the whole debate because this debate was based on the notion of rules that are supposed to be followed. You broke a rule, thus we aren't even engaed in the same debate anymore. "Your quibbling over my use of the word natural is pretty petty, bud. Is it that you're afraid of debating against this cosmological argument? I'm going to assume so."I did not squibble over semantics. As I said, there is a difference between:(i) Understanding the english language(ii) Arguing semanticsIf someone called a "calculator" a "speaker" and I corrected them, am I arguing petty semantics? No, Just because you do not understand words in the English language does not mean I am arguing semantics. Natural means natural, and supernatural means supernatural. "Con forfeited the debate by using semantics, knowing full well what I had intended by a natural mechanism, and offering no rebuttal."I have won almost every debate I have done on the cosmolgical argument; trust me, I have rebuttals. However, your rules are ridiculous. Start a new debate with standard rules and we can do this. Howerver, you broke your own rule and lost this debate. "The debate is over."Yes it is, because you broke your own rule and committed a fallacy. Also, you cannot define a "playing card" as a "cigarette pack", get called out on it, and then try to argue I am just putting forward semantics. A supernatural cause (my third option), cannot be called natural like my opponent tried to say.
The Cosmological Argument Is Sound

No. I didn't elaborate as to what it would mean by breaking a specific rule. Would this mean that if you or I swore, we would automatically lose the debate? Of course not. It would mean a loss of conduct points, if addressed but still continued. Semantics: Noun The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff". Your quibbling over my use of the word natural is pretty petty, bud. Is it that you're afraid of debating against this cosmological argument? I'm going to assume so.Con forfeited the debate by using semantics, knowing full well what I had intended by a natural mechanism, and offering no rebuttal.The debate is over.
The Cosmological Argument Is Sound

"Nowhere did I say that breaking a rule becomes an automatic forfeit, in fact I said no forfeiting. "No forfieting does not include automatic forfeits. You broke your own rules, thus you are done. "It would only mean the entire debate if the fallacy was that big of a deal, and continued after addressed. "Pro admits right here that this means the entire debate if the fallacy was a "big deal". However, a "big deal" only means that it was actually a fallacy, which is it clearly was. When you argue that something must either be "x" or "y", and there is another option ("z"), this is a logical fallacy. Pro concedes the debate. "Secondly, natural in this context means a mechanism without the need of a God. "You cannot change the definition of words, this is intellectual dishonesty. Natural means natural, and supernatual means supernatural. You cannot define a "dog" a "cat". "Please don't ruin this entire debate with your semantics. "Not following your own rules is unnacceptable. Also, there is a difference between:(i) Understanding the english language(ii) Arguing semanticsIf someone called a "calculator" a "speaker" and I corrected them, am I arguing semantics? No, I'm excpeting the other person to know what words mean. "Just give a proper rebuttal so we can have a real debate. Otherwise you're just being a fool. "You broke your own rules, and admited that it would mean the whole debate if it was a "big deal". It is a "big deal". You set very specific rules for this debate. Once a rule is broken, we are not even debating anymore because this debate was based on a strict guidline. I did not mess up the debate, you did by breaking your own rule. There is no way we can continue this debate, because this debate was based on a strict set of rules. Once the rules have been broken, we aren't engaged in the same debate you outlined in the first round. This means you forfiet whether you want to or not.
The Cosmological Argument Is Sound

I can't believe you're actually doing this.Firstly, even if I did commit a fallacy, it would mean that points go to the other for conduct. Nowhere did I say that breaking a rule becomes an automatic forfeit, in fact I said no forfeiting. It would only mean the entire debate if the fallacy was that big of a deal, and continued after addressed.Secondly, natural in this context means a mechanism without the need of a God. Please don't ruin this entire debate with your semantics. Just give a proper rebuttal so we can have a real debate. Otherwise you're just being a fool.
The Cosmological Argument Is Sound

The debate is about the Cosmological Argument.Rules No swearing. No insult to character. No insulting God. No fallacies. No forfeiting. No special pleading. (An argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view) Burden of proof is shared. The Cosmological Argument Premise One: An infinite regression of instances of change in reality is impossible. Premise Two: Following premise one, there must be a First Principle in reality before any instances of change in reality occurred. Premise Three: Following premise two, the First Principle of reality must be either a natural mechanism, or God. Premise Four: The natural mechanism must have been at one point, not causing instances of change in reality, otherwise the fallacy of infinity occurs. A natural mechanism is incapable of willing itself to activation, to causing instances of change in reality. All examples of natural mechanisms in nature show that they simply exist, and do not merely activate on their own. Premise Five: God is a sentient, self-aware being that is capable of willing instances of change in reality. Only a sentient, self-aware being can imagine a reality outside of the reality that already exists. Conclusion: Therefore the notion that God is the First Principle is more plausible than a natural mechanism. First Principle: The first initial point in reality before any instances of change in reality occurred.Change: The instance of becoming different.Time: The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.Quantum Mechanics, An AnalogyImagine if you will, a string that constantly vibrates. The vibrations can not have always been happening, there must have been a point in time that the string was completely still. The only thing that can cause a string to vibrate is something outside of itself.String: Quantum mechanics, or the natural mechanism.ConclusionAs I have argued, there cannot be an infinite regression of instances of change in reality. This means we come to the First Principle, the point in time before any change occurred, the moment before time itself began. I have argued that this First Principle must be God, it is Con's duty to show me why this First Principle can be a natural mechanism, and go from being not active, to active, all on it's own without a sentient, self-aware being to will it. He has to give reasoning as to why the natural mechanism went into motion in the first place. Or he must show me as to how it is logical for the natural mechanism to have simply always existed, producing instances of change in reality for an infinite amount of time.Good luck.
Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy is so much better than The Amazing Spiderman

My opponent said, "The Amazing Spiderman 1 and 2 [tried] to dazzle us many times by heavily using CGI. Sometimes the movie...and is completely unbelievable." I rebuttal that sentence because isn't marvel superhero movies suppose to have unbelievable moments. Isn't that what super hero movies are all about. Superheroes are suppose to do those unbelievable stuff. For example, saving a crashing airplane, catching many peoples are out a falling building. That is why superhero movies are exciting. If my opponent believes superhero movies shouldn't have many slow-mo scenes, I doubt that he has seen many Marvel/Dc movies. Additionally another thing The Amazing Spider-man did better that the trilogy is they made Peter Parker seem like a teenager
Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy is so much better than The Amazing Spiderman

The Amazing Spiderman 1 and 2 try to dazzle us many times by heavily using CGI. Sometimes the movie just feels like a video game at times and is completely unbelievable. Not to mention they completely overdo using slowmo. Spider-Man 3 has only one slow-mo scene, and it actually makes it believable by not relying so heavily on computer graphics- As for comedic relief, Spider-Man has plenty of funny moments: Also, the amazing spider-man fails to include J. Jonah Jameson, who is comedic gold:
Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy is so much better than The Amazing Spiderman

A wise man once said, "New is always better". Barney Stinton. The Amazing Spiderman is better than the original Spider man trilogy for many reasons: These are the 2 of them. *The graphics are more realistic and the animations are much better. Its no longer the same boring graphics graphics. One of most important animation that the "Spider-man" movie in general should have is the web swinging animation. That is clearly won by The Amazing Spider Man. *Most superhero movies add humor or comedic relief's which makes the movie more interesting. One of the funny statements Peter Parker used from the Amazing Spiderman is, "if your going to steal the car, don't dress like a thief" (Link for video:.)
Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy is so much better than The Amazing Spiderman

I've always loved the Spider-Man trilogy, and you better believe I was excited about the then upcoming Amazing Spiderman reboot. To put it mildly, I wasn't to impressed, and I think The Amazing Spiderman doesn't do Spider-Man justice. First, I don't want to hear, "it's just a matter of opinion, so you can't say either one is better than the other." That's called killing a debate. Second, I'd appreciate it if you post your arguments first. I'm genuinely interested in your arguments for The Amazing Spiderman 1-2 and/or against Spider-Man 1-3. "Spidey, love the new outfit! Give me some of that web action."
CoD: WaW is better than CoD 4

Warning i debate sloppy. moving on to my points. 1: my opponent stated: "CoD 4 was a good vacation from WWII, but WWII is what Call of Duty originated as." while this may sound accurate, it is not. the call of duty franchise is based entirely on war, the tactics of war, and the weapons of war. so basically it is education to war. 2: this is not really a point but this whole debate depends on how we define "better than". now to my counter-points. 1: my opponent stated: "The weapons/perks of modern warfare 1 have brought a plague upon Call of Duty..." first of all this is an opinion. just because you don't like something different doesn't mean others don't. i for one like the idea of the new weapons and perks. i think its something new and although it may have some downsides they were just testing it out. i think you'll agree that they almost entirely fixed the problems in modern warfare 2. only a few people think the m16 or martyrdom is "noobish" but others can use it to their tactical success. 2: my opponent stated: "The players are too aggressive..." one again that is an opinion and a stereotype. there may be a few people that get over-aggressive but that doesn't mean that all people who play cod 4 are aggressive. i find the overall cod 4 community to be friendly. 3: my opponent stated: "CoD: WaW is rather educational..." i agree that cod: waw is educational when you take a break from the killing and watch the clips before each mission. if you did the same for cod 4 you would realize that it too is educational. it teaches you about the mistakes that cause war and the ways of dealing with it. it is also called modern warfare because of all the modern technology. if you play modern warfare 2 it greatly extends the modern technology and uses.either way you can learn a lot from playing. thank you
CoD: WaW is better than CoD 4

CoD 4 was a good vacation from WWII, but WWII is what Call of Duty originated as. Moving on to my points: 1.The weapons/perks of modern warfare 1 have brought a plague upon Call of Duty... a. the M16 b. martyrdom c. frag x3 2. The players are too aggressive... a. MLG jerks b. makes people hate each other over a VIDEOGAME!!! 3. CoD: WaW is rather educational... a. major turning points of the pacific theatre b. morale hardships c. brutality
CoD: WaW is better than CoD 4

My... (for lack of better word) adversary stated: "my opponent's first counter point completely proves the fact that his point is an opinion. its like saying that if your good with a pistol and you use it a lot but everyone else sucks with it, they should just call you a noob and shun you forever." As humorous as that sounds, Infinity Ward also stated they realise the M16 is overpowered and has no recoil and is trying to add it in an update, they just think more things are important. (aka Semi-auto nerfing (meaning ruining Marcus' fun w/ semi's (which is practically every gun :P)by controlling the rate of fire)) Also they said: "my opponent's second counter point is entirely based on his experiences and "assumptions" and not fact therefore it holds no power." Right back at ya (:P) My feeble-minded opponent (:P) said: "if you can learn from something it is educational, therefore cod 4 is educational. you can learn much from it." That is like saying how in Ender's Game the radius of a blaster's shot is 2 inches, using fictional guesses for knowledge. The situation in many years to come may end up being the blaster is a 5 inch radius shot. And once said in Naruto "Wrong information is worse than no information at all. It can bring about the entire destruction of a village/nation." Finally my opponent stated: "im sorry, i didnt realize nazi zombies was a historical fact that cant be changed." You don't know that it isn't, look at all the information supporting it... Tunguska for example (but this has nothing to do with the idea, just thought I'd whoop you for defying me). I'd like to conclude stating that CoD: WaW is better than CoD 4. The remaining facts supporting this are: The weapons/perks of Modern Warfare 1 have brought a plague upon Call of Duty & CoD: WaW is educational (and historically accurate (I don't mean Nambies smart a**)) Thank you for this debate and to everyone "Remember to put a condom on" Daniel... Finish it