BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1B.

*NOTE* - The "1B" notation is for searching/browsing purposes. I hope to have more of these debates. The resolution is simple and brief: I am here to argue that the God of the Bible and thus the teaching of Christianity does not exist, i.e. has no solid evidence for it's existence. Common attributes given to this God is omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence , omnipresence, and many others. These 4 "omni-attributes", however, is what I will be focusing upon. =====Arguments===== For this debate I will be utilizing two popular arguments: the Argument from Evil and the Argument from Non-Belief. 1. Argument from Evil If an all-loving God exists, then why does evil and suffering exist in the world? Christians commonly use free will as an excuse for the evil in the world. But then, the burden is placed on my opponent to show why God would prefer us having free will rather than us not having free will, or having free will with moral perfection. Secondly, the Christian has to somehow account for natural disasters that cause millions of deaths, tons of parasites that feed on humans, and of course bacteria and viruses. While some bacterias and viruses are human-made or proliferated, it's foolish to say every virus and bacteria does. So what of the virus that kills an infant in 4 months? 2. Argument from Non-Belief I will paste the syllogism that Theodore Drange[1] formulated, based on J.L. Schellenberg's original formation of this argument: 1. If God exists, God: 1. wants all humans to believe God exists before they die; 2. can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die; 3. does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and 4. always acts in accordance with what it most wants. 2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1). 3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die. 4. Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3). =====Conclusion===== With both my arguments laid out, I await my opponent's rebuttal. ---References--- 1. http://www.infidels.org...
the bible is a load of crap

Vote Suggestions:Not necessary to continue reading, but as a former member of the Vote Review Board, you may get insight into good voting practices...CONDUCT: Con, due to forfeited rounds. OR a protest vote (of conduct only) for pro, on the basis of how offensive con's language was; making a mockery of an otherwise good debate (possibly contributing to pro going MIA).S&G (Spelling and Grammar): Tied. Neither side had a failing in language bad enough to distract significantly from the arguments.ARGUMENT: Tied by default (if just skimming and seeing a bunch of rounds forfeited, there is no justification to award the argument points; conduct is plenty for such cases). OR con, due to refuting pro's claims and advancing ideas beyond such which then went unchallenged.SOURCES: Tied. While con did better on this, and those went unchallenged; it was only better by a small margin, too small in fact for it to bare weight on the argument decision.
the bible is a load of crap

There are of course other meanings of crap to consider (all shall be taken from Merriam-Webster), such as nonsense: "words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas."This definition also leads to rejection of the resolution, as there Plenty of intelligible ideas are present in the books of the bible; such as a guy named Jesus who was great at food rationing, a few accounts of family lines, even some pretty cool stuff about diseases.Another is rubbish: "things that are no longer useful or wanted and that have been thrown out."Also rejection, as moral lessons of it continue to greatly impact society which was demonstrated last round (not even going into the number of people who still want it).
the bible is a load of crap

Key Definition:Merriam-Webster dictionary is widely accepted, and defines the following... Crap is the same as Defecate, "to discharge from the anus" [1]. If the spirit of this definition is not suitable, please provide a different one.Argument:The Bible has many shortcomings, however it has at least enough merit to be better than discharge from the anus. Consider the inspired words of of a wise man: "I am in Birmingham [jail] because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their 'thus saith the Lord' far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid." -Martin Luther King, Jr. 1963 [2]. The ethics it can be used to teach are often valid, and so is the work of religious men like Martin Luther King, Jr.. Other Christians have done great things, such as Georges Lemaître (a catholic priest) contributing the controversial Big Bang Theory to science (which many anti-religious scientists mocked heavily) [3].This is not to say all things from the Bible are good, merely that is worth better than accusations of of being a complete "load of crap."Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.africa.upenn.edu...[3] http://www.catholiceducation.org...
New LD Topic need help

OK, lets get started. So, I'll start with your observation. First, you must define "the written criminal law." Second, you must show later on in your case how vigilantes are relative to this topic. (I will address this later) Lastly, you agreed in the end of your observation that vigilantes are acting upon moral law, and are just. This is contradictory to your case later on. Ah, the core value. Preservation of human life. Great. However, you MUST SHOW how this can only be achieved through the negative side. It would be very easy for the affirmative to show how adhering to an international court DOES preserve human life. Value criterion? Contention 1- Government's monopoly on violence. You bring up vigilantes quite often. You actually end up contradicting yourself here. You now say that we cannot allow for vigilantes, contradictory to your observation. Also, show how this applies to the resolution? Contention 2- Violation of the monopoly. This is essentially your first contention all over again. Try to find some other points to use. Conclusion. I don't think that once throughout the entire debate did you mention an international court. This is a BIG problem. Your case seems a little irrelevant. Try to make it correlate with the resolution more. Make sure to get a criterion. Also, show how your value CAN ONLY BE UPHELD THROUGH THE NEGATIVE. If you don't do this, the affirmative quickly will to their own case. I hope this helps. Good luck at your meet!
New LD Topic need help

I have a practice region meet this weekend i was wondering if anyone could help meet hammer out the holes in my cases. Observation 1. We can safely assume vigilantes are not enforcing the written criminal law because obviously they do not act according to what the law dictates. Therefore we can assume that Vigilantes are enforcing a culturally held moral law, and punish deviance from such laws. V: Preservation of Human life. We need to keep humans alive to continue our existence. This means that we need to avoid actions that take human lives. VC: ??? …..Contention 1….. The government must maintain its monopoly on violence. Max Weber defined a state as an authority having the monopoly of the legitimate means of organized violence within defined territorial boundaries (see Weber's Thesis). It is essential to the legitimacy of the state that this monopoly on violence be maintained. Max Weber goes on to say "'Every state is founded on force. That is indeed right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of 'state' would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as 'anarchy.' It would be better for a government to be highly ineffective at enforcing law then it would be to not maintain its monopoly. The view of a government monopoly being necessary is not unique to Weber. Thomas Hobbes in his work The Leviathan also illustrates this idea. "For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all. Therefore, notwithstanding the laws of nature, if there be no power erected…, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art for caution against all other men." If government does not maintain a monopoly on violence there will be nothing to hold society together. Private individuals or groups will inevitably arm themselves and enact violence on each other. In almost every situation where the government has not maintained a monopoly on violence, violence against innocents, the government, and others has ensued. For this reason vigilantism is illegal. If we allow vigilantism to happen, then the government will lose its monopoly and society will degrade back to a state of nature, or as Thomas Hobbes put it life will become "poor, nasty, brutish, and short," and human life will not be upheld. …..Contention 2….. Vigilantism does not allow the government to maintain a monopoly on force. If vigilante action is pursued then the state loses its monopoly on force. This is bad because it leads anarchy and causes more violence and thus does not preserve human life.
An entire class should never be punished for the actions of one or a few students.

Entire class - All of the students that are being taught by one teacher at one time (in this case, the class is assumed to be about twenty to thirty students, and in America) Punished - Punish - to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Actions - acts of will (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) A few - Up to five Students - those who attends a school (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Countless times, I am in a class where some kids start goofing off, and then the teacher comes in and decides to punish everybody. I think that students should only ever be punished for their own actions. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate. For this debate, by "never," I assume the class to be under normal, modern circumstances.
An entire class should never be punished for the actions of one or a few students.

"Murders should never happen, because the police should know everything that relates to the safety of a community" However, if you do have a murder, and you end up with five suspects, with no evidence that could single any one of them out, what should you do? You should let them all go with a warning. "Not punishing anyone would be better?" Once one incident happens, the teacher should prepare for another incident. Yelling would probably get the job done. "Who said it had to be in front of the whole class? You could approach the teacher after class, and I'm sure the teacher would keep your name confidential." Nope. Usually, the punishment occurs directly after the incident is discovered, such as doing tons of push-ups or running a ridiculous number of lines. And nobody would want to go out of their way to turn in their classmate, especially when it is obvious that the word of what you did would spread. Also, what if you don't know who it was? "This is the problem with Generation Y, they see everything as an entitlement." Younger kids tend to need recess. If the police took away your driver's license because you might have been involved in a driving accident, but you really weren't, would that be just? No. The ability to drive is also a privilege, but people tend to need it. "...their could have been worse things that could have happened." Huh? So, if a guy steals your driver's license, you say, "Well, that's okay, because at least he didn't steal my keys!"? No. "And punishing innocent people might be unethical, but isn't the teacher the one who decides what is unethical or not, he or she is the utmost authority in the class." The teacher does not decide what is ethical and what is not. If Barack Obama got to decide what is ethical, it would result in many more abortions and affirmative action and so on, and if the king of the land got to control ethics, everybody would be his slave. What the people feel is a factor that determines whether or not something should be done. You still didn't answer the question. "I actually think it gets a lot done. It encourages students not to misbehave in the future, especially when the teacher isn't looking." Well, yes, it has a little bit of benefit, but this does not outweigh the negative points. And as for your other point, it is not right to punish everybody in that situation. The failures should be fired, or their wages should be cut, and you should be promoted. That would be the right thing to do. Thank you for reading.
An entire class should never be punished for the actions of one or a few students.

I agree with your definitions. I will, at this time, outline my arguments that I will be relying on for the rest of my debate. 1. Sometimes, teachers have no other choice. In some instances, since the teacher did not see what actually happened, he or she is put into a position to where they can either punish no one or everyone. Since punishing no one would only encourage future misbehavior, punishing everything is the only way to effectively punish the class. 2. As a "innocent" student, you have the chance to save the entire class from punishment. In most cases, at least in my experience, most teachers will say something along the lines of "Tell me who did this or y'all are all going to be in trouble!" (I'm from the south, my teachers say y'all). You, as an innocent member of the class, have the possibility to say "Person A did it!" and save you and others in your class from being punished. However, since no one speaks up, the class is just begging for a punishment. 3. Is the punishment really all that severe? I've been in the same situation several times before, but the punishment has never been that severe. I mean, I've never received a demerit or detention for something I didn't do. The worst that I've received is maybe "silent lunch", where all students are prohibited from talking during lunch. Now, its your turn to attack my points and establish your own.
Gay Marriage

Thank You for the welcome! First off, the use of religious Text cannot be used, even though im a Christian, i dont derive my argument from here. Although I support Civil Unions (making it constitutionally legal, and fair for everyone, since its endorsed by all Governmential and Political institution), However Marriage has traditionally been an Religious practice, and Homosexual marriage underminds all major religions (i am not using text, i am using historical facts). underminding a once Holy and very special practice is very offencive. Marriage between a man and a woman is as natural as the wind. And according to Science, the purpose of life, mandatory to the continuation of an species is to "Be born, grow, reproduce, and die", if you cut off born, well, youre never born, thus dont exist; grow, you cant grow enough to gather food or to make food, and are most likely eaten or killed; reproduce (my point) to continue your species, this, according to science, is critical. And Die, if we didnt die, we would be Gods. I will leave some views open for you to introduce, on round three we will argue against the points we have given, dont argue agaisnt my points until round 3... only introduce 2 more. Good Luck :)
Gay Marriage

You managed to turn this debate into a full fledged attack on my intelligence. And that's fine. Only goes to show how little of an arguement you have. Since this is a personal matter for you and not for me, I see no reason to continue the debate. But, I'd argue with a signpost, so I'll give my last. Discrimination comes in all shapes, sizes, colors, and genders. Just because it happens dosen't make them any less of a person. If there are people who are dicriminated against because they're gay, there's still that many more people who really don't care. No one has a monopoly on it. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is one I'm apatehtic to, for obvious reasons. But it just seems kind of overbearing to me. Men and women are prohibited from relations in the Army, and homosexuals should, too. But as for keeping their gender a secret, I don't think it really matters. They're serving their country, and that's admirable enough. And actually, to correct an insulting statement, I do watch the news. I pay more attention to the news than you could ever hope to do in a dozen lifetimes. As the name suggests, politics is my game, and the rules require me to keep up. Don't insult me. Homosexuality are the same, in the sense that they are sexual preferences, that they are both illegal, and that they are a small portion of the population. Both of them have the potential to destroy the institution of marriage. Men and women are uniquely designed to complement each other physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Marriage is the means for melding the two sexes into a stronger and more complete whole. Melding the same sex leaves an incompleteness. Ever wondered why one guy plays tough and the other acts like the woman? And it isn't any identity crisis, either. It's obvious in history that any civilization that allows marriage to weaken and devalue committed civilizational suicide. Case in point: Greece and Rome. Your metaphor wasn't a good one. Humans and rabbits are completely different, so a metaphor comparing them is insufficient. You don't know my friends.... Sometimes, I wondered the same things you arrogantly stated. But every time I did, I just remember the way they acted and conducted themselves, and compare it to now. The answer becomes painfully obvious.
Gay Marriage

aha, but it doesnt matter, I made one mistake twice, you made a few once with each, it about evens out. And yes, exactly, because they are not allowed to marry. marriage is viewed as the ultimate commitment and when two people dont see themselves being able to reach the end of the road of commitment, they have no urge to step on to it in the beginning. And, in all honesty, no, they are NOT treated like people, people are often denied jobs if it is known that they are homosexuals, and we need not mention the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy. Polygamy and homosexuality are quite different things, also, and anyone with half a brain can see that. You, obviously cant. If there are that many orphans, and that many couples looking to adopt, then WHY do we still have orphans? Thats another obvious. And, reproducing like rabbits was a metaphor, hun, but apparently you dont know about those either. You, my friend, must not watch the news very often. there have been many a killings on homosexuals and transgendered people just for being so. And yes, I would happen to know about both being straight and being gay, because I do "play for both teams" and your friends, they arent really straight, or they were never really gay. Thats how it works, and I hope that someday people will get off cloud 9 and realize that.
Gay Marriage

Aha, but the differnce is, I never misspelled anything twice. You did. Now, to the argument. Fine. The AIDS part was thrown in for effect. You caught me. Slap my wrist and be gone with you. So, homosexuals are promiscuous because...we...won't let them marry? They can be committed and not marry. Sorry, but that arguement carries no weight. What have we denied them other than marriage? Nothing. They're people, too, and are treated as such. But we must be concerned with the larger scope of things. The threat against marriage is no religious one, because the advancement of polygamy is a true development. Are you for that, too? Maybe you like females being treated like McDonald's toys. Collect 'em all! Side converstion, though. Yeah, overflowing orphanages are a real problem aren't they? 100,000 orphans every yearm and 200,000 couples looking to adopt. I'd say we have a problem with too few children. Homosexuality really just isn't the issue with that, but it's more like not enough people having children. They don't make a big enough impact to affect that. Try telling that to the Europeans. They live off that crap about a population bomb, so they stopped having children. Now look at them. Total societal collapse in 50 years, tops. By 2050, the population trend of the world is going to reverse, and it's definitely not homosexuality that's causing it. Humans can't reproduce like rabbits can. Rabbits generally are able to breed at a young age, and many regularly conceive litters of up to seven young, often doing so four or five times a year due to the fact that a rabbit's gestation period is only 28 to 31 days. It takes a human woman 9 months. And you're right, I don't know about being gay. I never latched on to the idea of relations with another man. But, I do know that I chose to be straight because girls look so much better than guys. I could be gay. Friends of mine used to be gay, and now they're straight. They'll testify that you can change. But, would you know about being gay? If so, would you know about being straight? If so, then you just defeated yourself. You don't have confusions about sexuality. Either you like guys, or you like girls, or you play for both teams. If not, you don't have room to criticize me. And believe me, heterosexual men get killed in droves compared to homosexual men. That I can promise. Your argument there is mere projection. If I turned out to be gay, my friends wouldn't kill me, and no one else would. We have lots of gays at school, and they've never been attacked. Ever. I never hear about it anywhere, either.
Gay Marriage

First off, I would like to point out that "anyways" is also, not a word, and that you yourself made quite a few mistakes, spelling and grammar wise, so you're in no position to correct mine. and on to the arguements, your only arguement that cmes much down to fact is the spread of AIDS. The rest are arguements that, though they could be argued, would simply rely on the moral and religious views of the voters to decide. But, on to AIDS. Yes, homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous in some instances, I will admit, but why do you think that is? Could it even POSSIBLY be because society wont allow them to commit to the fullest? I really dont see how this arguement involves AIDS, seeing as it was originally about gay marriage, not homosexuality in general. And to point out your arguement about evolution, is it possible that, mother nature didnt force out the homosexuality gene because it stops us from becoming like rabbits and overproducing? entirely possible. Humans are not the only creatures who engage in homosexual activities either,it is more common than one would think amongst animals. Reproduction is not as much of a necessity as you would like to believe, mrpresident, because if it were we wouldnt have overflowing orphanages all over the world, we would be short on children. We wouldnt have packed classrooms, we would still have one-room schoolhouses As for the whole "You CAN control being gay", the only thing I have to say to that is, you wouldnt know, now would you? Youre not gay, and why would anyone in their right mind choose to be something they can be killed for?