BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sin does not exist people! Don't believe on some buffoonery that the bible says! Believe in yourself

Sin must exist, whether or not it comes from God. Personally, I believe it does and it seems that you would like to debate the Religious point of view so I will start there. Sin must exist because, universally, we can agree that, for example: Murder is wrong. Unless the person is insane, no one will accept that murder is good. In all major legal systems across the world, this is a visible aspect, i.e. that murder is illegal. To say that sin does not exist, would be to say that we cannot acknowledge make ethical assertions as to what is right and what is wrong. This is false. I think there is a different argument to be made. I will conceded the idea that sin is somewhat arbitrary. Religious people will say that it was determined by a higher being. Atheists may say that it is determined by humans and rationality. Regardless, in either system, some actions become "sins" and others do not. There is no verifiable way to determine why we came up with sins because we can't objectives determine right from wrong, it is something intuitive. To try and explain why murder would be wrong would end in an infinitely regressive cycle. (You can always ask "So what, why is that bad?") There is no answer. At some point, we stop and have to say, "It's bad because it is." And that is what sin is. You first argue that it is contradictory. You are missing the entire point of the bible. Yes, sin is bad. Yes, everyone sin. That is not a contradiction. In fact, the belief goes that the children of God are forgiven of their sins, so long as they seek to be. This is an important point. Yes, everyone will sin, but not everyone will seek forgiveness for their sins. Those who seek forgiveness are the children of God. You next provide a long conversational narrative. The problem is that this is largely useless to suggest that sin exists, but rather this argues its okay to violate sin. These are two different arguments, however, the sin exists in both cases. The topic for this debate is whether or not sin exists, NOT whether or not its okay or if their are repercussions to violating it. The later topic is an impossible debate to have because we all have our different beliefs and interpretations of the world. I'd make the following argument: Some sins most definitely exist (i.e. murder is wrong). However, some sins are contingent on a certain world view (i.e. homosexuality is wrong). Many people would say that it is not a sin and they may be right, yet that does not deny that other sins do exist, and to suggest it does is simply inaccurate.
Heaven will take away free will.

For some reason, in Round 3 I wrote 'The resolution is affirmed.'. It's not. It's negated. Good show, AlwaysMoreThanYou.When I said 'I don't like this argument and I may consider dropping it', I was referring to the argument that we would not disobey God just because we wouldn't want to. It's a little late to drop it though, so if it was negated, it was negated, and if it wasn't negated, then good for me.ConclusionIf at this current time we are in possession of free will, it is obvious that there are certain things we cannot do, yet these things in no way negate our free will. Therefore, although there will be things in heaven that we will be unable to do, free will may be retained.I thank my opponent for a solid debate. The resolution is negated.
Heaven will take away free will.

Con Writes: 'I don't like this argument and I may consider dropping it.'I am sorry for not presenting an enjoyabl debate. Will you please tell me how I can improve? This is just my first debate.I'll keep my coclusion short. Without the choice to disobey God, what other choices do we have? We would be under his complete control. Therefore, I repeat my resolution. There is no free will in heaven.
Heaven will take away free will.

Rebuttals:Pro writes 'Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this you saying that without sin, it is inevitable for us to obey God? If it is, then this is exactly what I mean about having no free will. If God tells us, once in heaven, to do the macarena, we will do the macarena because we have no free will. The same would be true for any other commands.'Without nourishment, it is inevitable for us to starve to death. However, we still have free will. The free will does not permit us to do things that we are not able to do, and if we go to heaven we will not be able disobey God.As I wrote in the very first round, the clear implication of the resolution is that we currently have free will. However, this free will does not give us absolute and complete freedom to do whatsoever that our hearts desire. Similarly, once dead we will be able to make choices, yet we will not have absolute and complete freedom to do whatsoever we desire.God will likely not command us to do the macarena, because the macarena was invented by Satan.Pro writes 'Though jumping off a building surely runs contrary to his survival nature, he still chooses to do so.'It does not, however, run against the part of his nature which cares for his friends. In fact, it is in full accord with his desire to save his friends for him to jump off the building.In heaven, we will have full union with God. That means we will have absolutely zero reasons to disobey Him in any way. Still, I don't like this argument and I may consider dropping it.The Great AnalogyPro writes 'False.'True.According to the eternal source of knowledge, fountain of wisdom, hope of the lost, and comfort of sinners Wikipedia, a circle is 'a simple shape of Euclidean geometry that is the set of points in the plane that are equidistant from a given point, the centre.' [1]. It goes on to say 'In everyday use, the term "circle" may be used interchangeably to refer to either the boundary of the figure, or to the whole figure including its interior; in strict technical usage, the circle is the former'. Clearly, we can see that a circle must indeed be the set of points in a plane that are equidistant from a given point.Fortunately for me, the 'square circle' provided by my opponent is not a set of points that are equidistant from a given point. The points on the corners, for instance, are further away from the center than the midpoints of the sides. Since it is not a set of points equidistant from a given point, it is not a circle.Additionally, other logically contradictory phrases ('married bachelor', 'straight curve', etc.) can be substituted in for 'square circle'.ConclusionThe resolution is affirmed.Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Heaven will take away free will.

I appologize for not defining the words to begin with. With that said, I will move on to my rebuttals.RebuttalsCon writes: 'You are incapable of choosing not to starve to death if you refuse to eat any food.'Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this you saying that without sin, it is inevitable for us to obey God? If it is, then this is exactly what I mean about having no free will. If God tells us, once in heaven, to do the macarena, we will do the macarena because we have no free will. The same would be true for any other commands.Con writes: 'I grant that it may be possible to sin in heaven, although it would run fully contrary to every instinct in our nature to do so.'This impies that we can't (or wouldn't) try to do something against our nature. The only thing I want to disprove for this point is that our nature fully ditates what we choose. I'm going to take an extreme example, based on the Sherlock show on BBC. He must jump off a building to save his friends. Though jumping off a building surely runs contrary to his survival nature, he still chooses to do so. Other, less violent examples could be roller coasters, or, specifcally, a thrill ride found in Kings Dominion. It puts you n a harness and takes you by a cable up to about 100 ft. and you must pull a cord to drop into free fall. Your whole body fights against it, but you can still choose to pull the cord because you like the thrill. All I'm saying here is that your nature does not dictate your freedom to choose.Con writes: 'Can we build square circles? No."False. http://www.youtube.com...
Heaven will take away free will.

As you stated in your argument (and I am summarizing here) free will has nothing to do with abilities, but has everything to do with the choice. I agree with this. If someone makes the choice to try to fly, and leaps off a building, they are not going to be able to fly, but still have the choice to try. However, without sin, we are, as you said, “incapable of disobeying God. ” Therefore, without sin, if God commands you to do something, then you are incapable of CHOOSING to do anything different. You are not even allowed to think of disobeying god, as seen in Matthew 5:28: “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart,” suggesting that disobedient thoughts are just as sinful as disobedience itself. In this way, in heaven, we cannot even choose to try to do something, whether we will fail or succeed. This is the essence of free will, and it is lost. If we do not even have freedom of our own thoughts in heaven, what free will do we have?
Heaven will take away free will.

Rules: No trolling or semantics. Withdrawal from any round counts as a loss. Burden of Proof is on Con. Set Up: Round one: I explain my side, Con provides arguments against. Round two: Rebuttals Round three: Rebuttals Round four: Conlusions If heaven removes all sin, and it is a sin to disobey God, then once you go to heaven you are incapable of disobeying God. This means that if God is not as benevolent as he makes himself out to be, then once you go to heaven you lose all free will and are a complete, unquestioning slave to whatever he tells you to do.
The invisible things are the most important in the earth

Thanks to my opponent for a quick reply! Definitely makes these debates more enjoyable when we can debate quickly. "No, you cannot see freedom" To begin, I am not quite sure how you cannot see freedom. I clearly stated that freedom is the condition of being free of restraints; therefore being in restraints, one can see that freedom is restricted. "And if you are a Christian then you definitely believe that the invisible things are the most important. " Next, bringing up my views on religion carry no purpose in this debate. Even being Christian, why am I not allowed to argue another point of view? Even if I don't believe it completely, I am still allowed and able to put forth a strong argument. "These facts are irrefutable" Facts? What facts? This debate is entirely opinion-based, on which aspects of life, physical or invisible, are the most important. You failed to prove any of these facts, by the way. "Some would say that you can, claiming that the sky is blue because it reflects the air. " Proving my point. If it is a claim that individuals make, then it is a possible point of view. No proof was offered that this view is wrong, but merely another way of looking at the sky being blue. "Yet some of the greatest minds of the scientific world say that the sky is blue because the sun's rays and heat warm and the chemical reaction of air, (still not visible) turns the sky blue. " Fine. I will agree that the chemical reactions are not visible. But they turn the sky blue? Meaning we can see the blue sky? That would mean the sky, or air, is visible. "As I said before, you cannot see mercy, justice or freedom. " No proof of this. BoP falls on Pro, and they have failed to demonstrate this. My refutation claiming the world would not go into chaos or become a mess is avoided in Pro's second round (not saying that this was a "dropped argument," but more of a dropped refutation. ) Furthermore, this debate does not even revolve around whether justice, freedom, and mercy are visible. It states that invisible things are the most important in the world. Even if Pro was able to prove that these things are invisible (which he hasn't provided proof), he provides no arguments showing they are the most important. Therefore, Pro was not able to prove his side, and seeing that I am not entitled to give arguments, this debate should, in theory, go to me. I thank my opponent for a speedy debate. Thoroughly enjoyed this arrangement!
The invisible things are the most important in the earth

To disprove the first point, no, you cannot see freedom, only the products. Moving on, you also cannot see the air, yet we need it to stay alive and healthy. And if you are a Christian then you definitely believe that the invisible things are the most important. These facts are irrefutable, no sane man would say " I can see the air!" No, you cannot. Some would say that you can, claiming that the sky is blue because it reflects the air. ( Taken from Yahoo Answers) Yet some of the greatest minds of the scientific world say that the sky is blue because the sun's rays and heat warm and the chemical reaction of the air, ( still not visible) turns the sky blue. As I said before, you cannot see mercy, Justice or freedom. You can see acts of mercy, but what you SEE is the person giving the mercy. Same with justice and freedom.
Determinism is true

Compatibilists define free will as the freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals. How ever this is incorrect since all man is endowed with imagination and reasoning. With these two, spontanous actions may occur from a person. Con also wins the round since pro cannot prove determinism true. His only evidence for it being true is the evidence I rebutted in the previous round. Since 40% of heroine addicts are not linked to genes they have free wil
Determinism is true

I assume that my opponent is not familiar with compatibilism. Although, for example, he may have chosen the con side of this argument and chosen to join this site it is clear that these actions were already determined based on his education, friendships, etc. No doubt some will exists but in essence we are all predetermined from birth to certain actions, as I illustrated above with heroin, and even though our actions may not be completely determined we are still prone to committing some actions.
Determinism is true

My opponent has accepted the pro side of determinism and I knowingly and consciously accepted the con. Since I have made a choice there must be within me the ability to create choice or free will. Now to the Pro's case. He states that at most 60% of people with addictions have addictive qualities in their genes. This is not 100% so 40% due in fact have free will so free will exists, and determinism states that in no way shape or form free will exists. Since free will does exist, Con wins the round He provides no evidence on how society dictates actions so that is removed from the round.
Determinism is true

It's clear that within human nature our genetics already predispose us towards some choices in life, for instance; "However, newly emerging genetic evidence may help to combat this debasing stigma. Epidemiological studies show that around 40-60% of the risk of developing an addiction to heroin is genetically determined (Kreek, M.J. et al. 2005)." Source: http://biochem118.stanford.edu... Not only genetics but societal factors determine our behaviour to an extent.
Determinism is true

I presume this is an acceptance round, in the case that it is I would like to point out we only have 500 characters and believe that should be adjusted, also we have 3 rounds so minus this 1 we have 2 other rounds which leaves us little time to do anything other than just give two speeches never the less though I accept and since you gave no definition for determinism I will provide one. Determinism- the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.
Violence does not equal evil

I accept and define "evil" as "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds." An example: an evil life. The definition comes straight from http://dictionary.reference.com....My argument will be mainly based on the "morally bad" part of the definition of evil. "to use violence anywhere, or consider sheer existence of violence can't be really considered as a bad thing."My opponent says. Well, surprise for you! Even violence not against other people can be evil. Slaying poor kitties is evil. It looks so cute, and everybody loves cute, and therefore they will hate you for killing this poor kitty. It can then be thus concluded that killing this poor kitty is immoral and evil. Killing requires violence. Therefore, voilence equals evil in this case.The sheer existence of violence is evil. I mean, sure, they look harmless right now, but sooner or later, they'll be spoiling blood all over the floor. Nobody likes blood on their floor. Spilling blood on the floor requires violence using weapons. Because nobody likes this action, it can be concluded thus immoral, fitting the definition of evil, and I have fulfilled my BoP to show violence equals evil.Your turn, pro.
Violence does not equal evil

Although violence may be a horrible thing, in of itself it isn't evil. Violence is part of our life, it's also tool for the nature to use in it's evolutionary mechanics (Survival of the fittest). But violence can be found even in daily part of our lives and things that we would consider harmless. Football, Boxing, Wrestling, actually any form of sport has a little bit of violence in it. We can also find violence in art, when it's showed as a form of expression. So, something that is actually natural to us, just another fact that exist, can be actually considered evil? Of course used against another person it can be evil, but to use violence anywhere, or consider sheer existence of violence can't be really considered as a bad thing.
Violence does not equal evil

While violence can do good, there are limitations to evil as well; even evil people can have some heart, not all villains are cold-blooded murderers. Facts can be not commonly accepted by people, and thus considered "immoral". I have shown much, much more possible evil things you can do with violence, while you have only shown the overthrowing of the oppressive governement--which can also be immoral if you do it wrong!!In conclusion violence equals evil. Vote me.
Violence does not equal evil

Because protests always work out for everyone. Protests may be not enough, and I would actually say that even then contain a little bit of violence in them. I don't agree, I think I explained pretty well why I actually didn't concede it. Well I actually did it by showing the ways that violence can be used both in good and bad ways like a tool, and is nothing more than natural fact. Well wrapping up. As for my final statement, I still stand by the fact that violence is not evil in itself. Violence is just usage of force against someone or something. It's existence is not evil and is merely a fact in our universe. It can be used as a tool for both good and evil. It can be used to murder people, but it can also be used to overthrow an oppressive government or even just in sports. Violence is a part of our daily lives and we must accept it. Of course if we overuse it even for good goals, it will be an evil act. But that doesn't make violence in itself evil. It stands on the neutral ground of morality, just like a hammer or any other tool. Thank you very much for this debate Con, I enjoyed it greatly.
Violence does not equal evil

Well you haven't really proved that violence is evil. You have only proved that TOO MUCH violence, even in cases where it's use can be considered as good, is evil. Which I always agreed with. As I already said, for the whole debate I tried to prove that violence itself isn't evil. That it's existence is just a fact, and it can be used also in good ways if not overdone. The tyrant doesn't need to be punched in the face a hundred times, or be stabbed 20-something times. But overthrowing him is still violence. Boxers can be immoral and go too far, but they don't have too, and even if they don't their fighting is still violence. So, is hammer evil because it has more evil uses than good ones? Hell is any tool evil if it has more evil uses than good ones? Of course not, tool is a tool and it can be evil only when used in an evil fashion. Violence is also like that, it's not evil, it's just a fact. It exists, it can be used also in good ways. It's perfectly natural for it to exist and there's nothing wrong with it.
Violence does not equal evil

The violence may still be immoral. Even if the tyrant deserves to be overthrown that does not mean he deserves to be punched in the face 100 times, or like Julius Caesar, be stabbed 20-something times.Boxers are immoral if they use too much violence against each other. Again, there is a reason there is a referee there, he is to check just in case! There are special cases in which boxers go too far. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org.... The Boxer known as Mike Tyson went way too far and was disqualified. Thus, this is immoral based on the opinion of the majority of the audience and can thus be concluded evil.About the hammer--you even conceeded this point, saying "hammer might have more evil uses than it has the good ones"! Even though violence can be used to fight evil, there is always a degree to which it is way too much. Put a thief in a Saw (the movie) trap? Too much. Putting a murderer who only killed one person under waterboard, then burn him, then electrocute him, then rape him, then skin him and slowly let him bleed to death....That's just unhumanly cruel, a complete level above evil.In conclusion I have fulfilled my BoP to show that violence equals evil.
Violence does not equal evil

Thank you Con. Excuse me but... "The topic is very vague, and you did not clarify it, so therefore I can manipulate it to mean "Violence equals evil....under most circumstances"." No, you can't. The topic is precisely stating. "Violence does not equal evil" in other words "violence is not inherently evil" or "Violence is not 100% evil". So no, the topic is pretty clear. You cannot just add another sentence to the topic, when the topic isn't even mentioning it. So please, refrain from doing that in the future. This is not an argument. "Ah, but from the perspective of the tyrant it is immoral!" Well but most of the people consider it to be moral don't they? And even so, the tyrant may be aware that he is immoral and consider this action moral. Even though he still might, and probably will dislike it. About competitive play, I've never said that when talking about violence I'm talking about most drastic option did I? Actually using force against inanimate object can still be considered violence. Even attacking (by attacking I mean tactically, without violation of the rules) the other team, trying to get through their defenses to get the ball into net can be considered violence. And another, pretty clear example of using violence in sport, Boxing. Are boxers evil if they use violence against each other? About the hammer, well then you just prove my point. Who said that act of violence always have to be looked down upon? Again, overthrowing a tyrant isn't something that people look down upon. They tend to consider it an act of greatness. Again, violence itself can be considered a tool just like a hammer. Hammer can build a house and kill someone with it. When we think about it, hammer might have more evil uses than it has the good ones. Violence can be used to fight something y evil, or it can be used for oppression.