BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

In the specific rounds, I have addressed my opponent’s rebuttals as best I can. Hopefully, these concepts should now appear sound: - The universe cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed - It is inherently contradictory to say that synonymously, God is both infinitely-intelligent and omnipotent, yet this is precisely what is required for an Intelligent Design argument - To say that God is beyond our comprehension, is to leave out all two of the necessary components for an Intelligent Design argument: evidence that God is both infinitely-intelligent and omnipotent - The ‘Finely tuned’ argument is nonsense If my opponent decides to argue in the final round, so as to make up for the lost round, keep in mind that I have no way in which to respond to those arguments. Thank you for reading =)
Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

General responses "I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning behind the statement something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed." If I showed you a piece of paper, and on this piece of paper was colourful scribbling, would you say that this colourful scribbling was designed, that it had purpose? What exactly are the requirements to conclude that something was designed? I’ll tell you: Knowing the specific goal in the mind of the intelligence, so that it can be affirmed when met (hence demonstration of intelligence through the limitation of attempting to complete a goal) A demonstration of intelligence via an obstacle-goal relationship (i.e. attempting to complete that goal) So, if I told you an adult scribbled on that paper, and the goal was to create an incoherent mess, you could then say that the goal had been met, right? This is how design works; via limiting oneself to a goal. Complexity does not fit into this design process, unless it is required, right? You don’t set out to make things ridiculously complicated. They become complicated when you discover that nothing simpler would get the job done. “I do not claim that the universe is "fine tuned" in fact I refute that. The universe works the way God intended it. It didn't need to be "tuned" because it was the way God intended it to be from the beginning.” Very well, I will drop the counter-argument to the ‘finely tuned’ argument. However, if, as you said, “the universe works the way God intended it”, then you’re claiming that God was involved in an obstacle-goal relationship. You’re saying that God’s work can be proven to satisfy his goal. In such a circumstance, momentarily ignoring the problem that you’re attempting to tell us how an infinitely-intelligent god thinks, would that then not limit god to the obstacle-goal relationship, in an effort to show his intelligence? As I’ve argued, demonstration of intelligence requires a situation wherein a being limits his/herself to a testing scenario. Back to the other problem: how are you to know what god thinks? “"It is not possible to demonstrate infinite intelligence and infinite power at the same time" when you say this you make God out to be a human. God is God and does not have human limitations in fact God established all limitations which means he can transcend these limitations if He desires… You make God out to be a human with human attributes and strengths.” These traits are not at all human. Infinite-intelligence and omnipotence are not possessed by any human. It is not that god is limited, far from it, but that in order to demonstrate his infinite-intelligence, he would have to limit himself, hence forgoing his omnipotence. In order to argue for intelligent design, you have to prove that god demonstrated his intelligence through his creation, which involves limiting himself to the testing conditions. But if he were to limit himself to the testing conditions, then you couldn’t say that he is omnipotent. This is the necessary paradox; intelligent design is inherently illogical.
Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

First I assert that rather than being just infinitely-intelligent or just omnipotent he's both to have one without the other is impossible. I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning behind the statement something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed. Are you saying man is complex or that God is complex. I'll take a stab at it anyway if we say that God cannot exist because he is complex and you can't understand him is to say yourself does not exist because you are complex. I do not claim that the universe is "fine tuned" in fact I refute that. The universe works the way God intended it. It didn't need to be "tuned" because it was the way God intended it to be from the beginning. "It is not possible to demonstrate infinite intelligence and infinite power at the same time" when you say this you make God out to be a human. God is God and does not have human limitations in fact God established all limitations which means he can transcend these limitations if He desires. I hope my statements left no confusion, but my argument comes down to this: You make God out to be a human with human attributes and strengths. Man was made in God's image not God in mans. Therefore your argument is void.
Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. 4 rounds, 2 week voting period, 48 hours to respond and 10k max. word rounds. First round is for acceptanceSecond and third rounds are for arguments and counter-arguments as we see fitFinal round is for counter-arguments and concluding (no new arguments)I will accept burden of proof; I intend to demonstrate that not only theists argue illogically for intelligent design, but that they can do nothing but. Let's do this.
Did france help in WII

your right there is an error sorry about that yes this is about World War2. What I mean is what did France do to help Great Britain And the United States. I think France really did nothing to help. Yes they did kill a lot of Nazi but the Nazi did take over Paris after that its like they just vanished into thin air. While the Allied side where fighting the Nazi, Japan and Italy with low supplies. United State Great Britain and Canada went to France to help get back Paris that is know as the turning point. It is called D Day. And did France help with this no they did not.
Did france help in WII

Alrighty, I'm going to assume this is about World War 2 on the Allies side, as the title has a slight error (or perhaps there is something I don't know about called WII. During WW2, France fought as the 'Free French' after the take over of its own nation, becoming the Vichy Puppet state. Although this could be interpreted as just an attempt to get Germans off it's own turf, the French were notably killing off Nazi soldiers, and like many before us said- the enemy of my enemy is my best friend. I'll be mentioning the 'Free France' society frequently, as they are the most well known but let's be fair here, it didn't contribute much to the war other than scaring everyone else with the capabilities of the Germans. However, Normandy (The Doomsday Attack) in a sense did act as a bait to create a turning point in the Great War, as Germans were advancing quickly. Now, if we were talking about HOW much the French did assist in the Second Great War, then it's agreeable... that the French really didn't do much except get captured. However, you didn't specify how much of a help they were, thus you left the question as an open end 'yes' or 'no' response. And to that, my answer is- Yes. The French DID help in WW2. On the contrary, if we were talking about French assistance on the AXIS side, we can talk about the MASSIVE amounts of land aquired by the Nazi's, and the manpower the Vichy gained. However, to this day- if you hear someone even suggest you are a 'Vichy', you have the right to get infuriated, as it's seen as a massive insult to the French (being seen as a traitor, nazi, or someone who ENFORCED the holocaust). But, i'll only assume you meant on the allied front of WW2, though i'd appreciate your input on this topic :)
Sega Genesis vs. Super Nintendo

So I will just name the most important parts of why I am debating this. I have both consoles, Sega genesis and Super Nintendo. The games on the Super Nintendo are so much better. You have Mario kart, Zelda, chrono trigger, Super metroid, Super Mario world, Donkey Kong country In my opinion, better games. On the Sega Genesis you have sonic which is a real winner and probably the best games on the system, you have ecco the dolphin which is ehh, Goldenaxe, altered beast ehh. Not so popular games but still good. There is more but just okay games but not games that are crazy. So I think SNES wins in this area. For console design, I can't debate on that which genesis looks a lot better so I will give you that one. One of the most important things on the console is the controller. For the 3 button genesis controller, it doesn't work well with fighting games and it doesn't have R and L buttons and SNES controller had 4 face buttons, a start and select button, R and an L button. The 6 button controller doesn't count because it wasn't at the release of the genesis. I will let you speak since we have mulitple rounds lol. This is more of an opinion based debate if you can tell
let it be resolved that the minimum wage should be abolished

If it is difficult to survive on the minimum wage, then how much more difficult it must be to survive if you are making nothing at all. This is the result of the minimum wage, unemployment, and unemployment among low skill workers - the most vulnerable and the most desperate of all members of our society. People who's skill set is below the minimum wage, someone who might qualify for only $5 an hour when the minimum wage is $10. Exploitation cannot occur in a voluntary relationship. When an employee and an employer make an arrangement to exchange money for labour this is inherently unexploitative. If the employee feels they are being exploited they are free to quit at any time. If the employer feels the employee is not worth the money, then he may fire the employee at any time as well. A point of clarification. My sources so far did not establish that minimum wage causes unemployment among 'people' per se (except in a broad sense that teenagers / unskilled workers are people) but among unskilled workers specifically. You see it isn't just anyone who becomes unemployed by the minimum wage, it is the weakest and most desperate members of our society. People who need a job more than anything else. It is exactly THEY who are put out of work by the minimum wage. So how on Earth can these laws help those people? How does making someone unemployed HELP that person? It's not that if the minimum wage were lowered that an employer would fire all his workers and hire people that are of less skill for less money and then somehow magically make profits. If a worker is employed by a company, then that worker is being profitable for that company - if they weren't, they would get fired. Lowering the minimum wage isn't going to alter the existing relationships between employers and employees (except where wages are kept artificially high by lowering competition between skilled labourers and unskilled labourers, that is to say someone who is making $28 / hr might see their salary decrease by a very small amount) what it will do is enable employers to employee low skilled workers, typically poor people, teenagers, minorities etc. who they are currently forbidden by law from hiring. It will create many more jobs, create a tremendous amount of wealth, teach these people who are currently forbidden by law from working new valuable marketable skills and enable them to command a high salary through the development of these skills and work history. If you truly care about the poor, then there is only one thing to do. Eliminate the minimum wage and all regulations on the labour market. Proponents of the minimum wage like to pretend they are helping low skilled workers. They are not. What they are doing is causing unemployment among the very groups they claim to help helping.
let it be resolved that the minimum wage should be abolished

As I understand it it, my opponent is advocating that a lower minimum wage would increase employment amongst society, or indeed would benefit an employer to employ more people at a lower cost. The problem here is, that most employers would probably prefer that option, as they get more workers for less money. So in conclusion, one establishment or guy who sits at the top can earn more money whilst the ground workers get less. I find this logic unreasonable to accept. My opponent argues that unemployment figures are high, because the minimum wage is also to high, and it doesn't suit employers to pay too many people, my opponent argues, that if employers could pay people less, then they could employ more people. The problem with this logic is, The standard minimum wage is a figure introduced and enforced by governments to ensure that people are payed the least possible wage apt to survive according to the society they live in. For example, The minimum wage in London United Kingdom, is enforced by Government officials to ensure, 1: That employees are not being exploited by employers who take advantage of the vulnerable unemployed and desperate people who are eagerly seeking work. 2: the minimum wage is a set figure devised by government to force employers to pay at least the minimum wage requirement to employees, this figure is based on an analysis of what is deemed essential for people to survive with in today's economy and society. Whilst my opponent argues that a lower wage would be more beneficial for society and increase Jobs. I have a source that portrays the contrary, stating an increase to the minimum wage is required to help support the less privileged. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Again whilst my opponent is arguing that a lower minimum wage be enforced to enable more employers to employ more people and increase more jobs, the point my opponent is missing, is that if you decrease the minimum wage, all you get, is yet another minimum wage. whist I am suggesting an absolute minimum must be enforced to protect exploitation and to ensure a decent standard of living I possible for an employee. Now, my opponent seems to link racism to the set minimum wage, and he offers a citation with a source, claiming the minimum wage is racist to black people and causing unemployment amongst black people. I fail to conclude this as viable, firstly the minimum wage is not racist, simply because it applies to all races, it does not only apply to a certain race, in fact it aims to distribute income more fairly to everybody and tries to avoid exploitation to the need and vulnerable.
Can you die? In relation to quantum physics and parallel universes.

You accept my proposition? To add onto my proposition I wanted to bring up the laser experiment, you might not know about this - but scientists working in NASA set up three lasers in a triangle formation to discern the shape of the universe. If the degrees added up to 180 degrees the universe is flat, if above it is not. The degrees added up to 180 degrees, exactly. The reason this links with my theory is that when the universe is flat it means it is infinitely large or atleast close to that, which would in a circulatory way prove level 1 parallel universes. With a universe that is close to or infinitely large, copies of our consciousness and everything that makes up you and me will exist, due to the finite amount of combinations of atoms you can have. If the universe is infinite based on this then your consciousness is infinitely spread among it, and you are quite literally the hivemind of all of those consciousnesses due to the acts of quantum objects and how they exist in multiple places at once, especially the electron.
Can you die? In relation to quantum physics and parallel universes.

My argument for the proposition of immortality on the basis of quantum physics is using the one of two evidenced forms of parallel universe, the one which is more easily provable than the other, this is the type 1 parallel universe. Type 1 parallel universes are exact copies of a universe due to extreme distances in space and eternal inflation. Eternal inflation is a proven theory -based on recent evidence- and understanding the dynamics of universe evolution. The reason this would prove immortality (atleast in the sense of before an entire universal catastrophe) is that in these areas of space, in which would be practically infinite, there would be an exact copy of you atomically and also in terms of consciousness, as you cannot experience not being alive, so you are in the state of experience. The one issue most people bring up is that "we only experience this one space" however by looking at the correlation between particle physics and quantum physics and their basic discoveries, we find out (experimented) that particles were found to be in many places at once, even necessary. And that they were directly linked with one another, as they were effectively the same particle but spread out along a vast length of space. This means that the particles in our body, every one, is in multiple places at once, strange right? And any complete copies of ourselves are directly linked and effectively the same, meaning whenever one malfunctions or ceases to function, the linked electrons don't follow pursuit, atleast the amount that hadn't encountered the same incident. So we continue to live in the set of versions of us that are all the essential hivemind until all are vanquished.
Ranger's Apprentice is one of the best book series.

Hate to be brutal, but I don't see your point. So what is it has more books? I for one, think that quality does justice over quantity. George R.R Martin has both. And so what if it is tailored to a suitable audience? You loose a lot of freedom. George has the power to do what he wants and it works. Zombies and dragons AND fratricide? In one book? Count me in!
There are more than 2 Genders

If you disagree with the World Health Organization, perhaps one of these sources will tickle your fancy. Google Search: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). http://www.merriam-webster.com...: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...: The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones) http://www.dictionary.com...: either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior https://www.apa.org...: Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex. http://www.yourdictionary.com...: Gender is defined as the socially constructed roles and behaviors that a society typically associates with males and females. http://www.businessdictionary.com...: Culturally and socially constructed difference between men and women (as indicated by terms such as 'gender affairs' and 'gender politics') that varies from place to place and time to time. In comparison, 'sex' denotes biologically determined, thus unchangeable, difference between them https://othersociologist.com... Gender is more fluid " it may or may not depend upon biological traits. More specifically, it is a concept that describes how societies determine and manage sex categories; the cultural meanings attached to men and women"s roles http://ejce.berkeley.edu...: A socially constructed system of classification that ascribes qualities of masculinity and femininity to people. Gender characteristics can change over time and are different between cultures. Boundless.com: "Gender" is a term that refers to social or cultural distinctions associated with a given sex; it is generally considered to be a socially constructed concept. Source: Boundless. "Defining Sex, Gender, and Sexuality." Boundless Psychology. Boundless, 15 Aug. 2016. Retrieved 30 Oct. 2016 from https://www.boundless.com... The idea that an organization shouldn't be allowed to define words is laughable, as confusion would inevitably result if everyone were able to define words for themselves. In addition, the idea that intersex isn't a 3rd gender is laughable. They can't be female because they have Male Sex Organs and they can't be Male because they have Female sex organs, therefore they must be a 3rd gender.
There are more than 2 Genders

If you abide by the definition set by the World Health Organization, then you have the genders of Femininity, Masculinity, and Transgender (A Male who identifies more with Female Behavior and Activities or Vice-versa). At the very least those 3 qualify under their definition. Even if you treat Gender as the same thing as sex, we have Male, Female and Intersex (Someone who was born with Male and Female Genitalia. Therefore, regardless of how you define Gender, you have to affirm the resolution. http://time.com... https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Rap and HipHop should not be voted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Rock is just PURE rock and roll. the examples aren't rap or hiphop, what I think shouldn't be inducted is the trash on the radio today such as Madonna, Lady Gaga and that pop crap. It's called Rock and Roll! Examples would be The Who, Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith and plenty of other rock groups. Rappers shouldn't be inducted, why is LL Cool Jay in it? He isn't rock, see the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame sucks now, KISS were right, it's just dumb now, madonna should be in the Pop hall of fame NOT ROCK N ROLL
Rap and HipHop should not be voted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

My opponet saying that Rap and HipHop should be voted in the Rock Hall of Fame is invalid for many reasons. Since my opponet didn't specify about what form of Rap and HipHop then that leaves me to determan that any band that preforms any singal one song of Rap or HipHop shouldn't be aloudLinkin ParkLinkin Park is a great rock band with amazing songs and people recogizing it. Even the UN . http://www.un.org...=. Besides rock Linkin Park (my favorite band) has been involved in some rap. . http://www.youtube.com... with this the great band of Linkin Park wouldn't be aloud into the Rock Hall of Fame. Holleywood UndeadThis is one of many favorite bands. . http://ls1tech.com... people enjoy a great Holleywood Undead song. . http://www.youtube.com...ConclusionBands like these should be able to be invited into the Rock Hall of Fame. If not you would. .. make people mad for a better term.
The Future Fuel: Hydrogen

I can only argue the facts that we presently have. What if technology cannot prove a way to avoid the harmful emmisions for hydrogen production? My argument would be the same. Also, hydrogen fuel is extremely flammable and odorless. If there were a hydrogen leak in someone's vehicle, they would not be able to detect it which is extremely dangerous. Being that tomorrow would technically be the future, a hydrogen fueled car, given the circumstances that are present, would not be the best choice.
The Future Fuel: Hydrogen

Right, that is at the moment. But the point of this debate is for why Hydrogen is the fuel of the future, not the hear and now. As time progresses and the technology becomes more available on a wide scale and the other factors involved with compressed hydrogen's production become more feasible at a low impact to the environment, like with the use of clean coals, the appeal of hydrogen will increase while its drawbacks decrease all while it continues to offer the freedom of gas without the impact.