BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
we are all fools.

Thank you for the debate.My opponent fails to meet his burden of proof. As Pro, it is up to him to demonstrate that we are all fools, and for me to counter his arguments.Nevertheless, I am happy to provide a counterarguments to the resolution.DefinitionsFool1. asillyorstupidperson;apersonwholacksjudgmentorsense.2. a jester or clown, especially one retained in a royal or noble household.ArgumentsDefinition two is easy to refute.P1) Ff we are all fools, we are all jesters.P2) I am not a jester.C1) We are not all jesters.C2) We are not all fools.Presumably, however, you were in fact referring to definition one.It is up to you to demonstrate that everyone is silly or stupid, lacking judgment and sense.I do not feel that I lack judgement or sense; in addition, I feel that a majority of DDO users who have reached a certain level of experience have demonstrated that they are not stupid or lacking in at least a basic level of good sense.ConclusionWhile there is obviously much more for me to say, I'd like to hear my opponents actual arguments before I go on. Summarily, we are not all fools.
Gods plan does requires Sin to function

Thanks for the debate Pro.Pro makes no attempt to dispute my principle arguments that God's plan for mankinds redemption doesn't require sin, just acceptance of Christ, and that God gave man free will because he wanted to be worshipped by free beings. You can extend the C.S. Lewis card arguing this as my opponent made no response. Refer also back to my original argument where I showed that God hates sin and wants man to turn from it. Pro contends that since God created everything He must have had a plan that revolved around sin. This is false because God gave man the free choice *not* to sin. That's what He wants. If we all stopped sinning and started loving God we would have fulfilled His wish for mankind. At the end of the day you have to vote Con here because Pro has failed to uphold his burden of proof, God *allowing* the existence of something is not the same as his plan *requiring* it. I've also given good reasons why the existence of sin is consistent with Gods plan for mankind not requuring it.
Gods plan does requires Sin to function

Closing Argument. Jail, what is the purpose of jail? It is to keep people enclosed in a secure area to prevent them from doing misdeeds. In jail they do what they can to prevent people from breaking out and hurting others in the jail. They don't want things going wrong so they do what they can to stop it. If god did not want/need Sin in the world why would he of set up the scenario that first introduced Sin? The Con did not even mention this in their last statement. If god did not want Sin then he would of made the perfect circumstance for Sin to come into existence and flourish. God is the creator of everything, he made Sin, without Sin there is no purpose of God. God saves us from the thing he created, his plan revolves around Sin. I want you to address this one FACT, that is it is only a fact if you believe in the literature in The Bible. Back to you Con.
Gods plan does requires Sin to function

==What is sin?==My opponent makes no attempt to respond to my definition of what sin actually is, which is a trangression against God. Keep in mind that this (dropped) definition makes it very difficult for Pro to win as it makes no logical sense whatsoever for God to have a plan that requires transgressions against Him. Let's look to what Pro did say, and from there we can see why exactly a vote for Con is needed. Recall also that my opponent has made no attempt whatsoever to explain what God's plan is. I explained that God wants all humans to willingly accept redepmtion through Christ. This is a biblically sanctioned perspective, entirely mainstream and consistent with attributes commonly given to God. Pro argues that since man has been given the mere *ability* to sin, then clearly God wants people to sin. First, this is simply false, giving someone a choice doesn't mean that you want them to choose that way. Secondly, my opponent gives no reason why God would want sin if he hates it so much (refer to the definition of sin and Proverbs). I could simply say "I don't know why God gave man free will" and you would still have to vote Con because it blatantly defies logic to assume without any argument from Pro that God gave man free will because he wanted them to sin. However this is all irrelevant because we have good reasons to believe that God gave man free will for a purpose that doesn't involve sin. He wanted to be loved freely. As C.S. Lewis explains: "...free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they've got to be free."[1] What this means is that God wants to be loved and have meaningful relationships with free people. If one is wondering what the difference between actual, freely given love and forced love is, compare human relationships to, say, the relationship between a human and a computer programmed to "love" him. Clearly the former would be more meaningful. God doesn't want us to sin. He wants us all to come to Him, and he gave us Jesus to do just that. The resolution is negated. 1. http://www.goodreads.com...
Gods plan does requires Sin to function

Thank you Con. Rebuttal - Con stated that man was first introduced to sin through the serpent which gave man influence to sin. Since God is The creator does this not mean God put the serpent in the tree? Yes, God gave mankind the ability to choose what they want to do, free will, but nothing is stated about other living creatures. This serpent would have been acting with Gods intent, there is no reason to assert otherwise. If God did not want man to sin because "God wants is the opposite of sin" then why would he introduce the factor that led to sin. If God has such conflict with Sin then why in heavens did he allow it? He allowed it because he needs it. God created everything, therefore God created Sin. If he didn't want Sin then why did he make it? After man sinned the "Bible is the story of man's sinfulness, God's vengaence and, eventually, his redemption of mankind through Christ." None of the vengeance or redemption was needed. God introduced Sin so he could sit back and let man use his ability of free will to obey his divine command or burn in hell for eternity. Without Sin god has no purpose. Yes, if someone is truly repentant in the end they would be fully welcomed into heaven and be treated as equal to everyone else, regardless of their misdeeds.
Gods plan does requires Sin to function

Thanks Pro. What is sin?Let us first exam what sin is. Sin is considered an act against God, a breaking of some kind of divine command. The story of the Garden of Eden tells us that God gave man one job, not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge but man, under the influence of the serpent, did so anyway. From there the entire Bible is the story of man's sinfulness, God's vengaence and, eventually, his redemption of mankind through Christ. This is what should be considered as "God's plan". Christianity teaches that God loved creation so much that he was willing to send Jesus to die a horrible death for our collective redemption from sin. This makes Pros assertion truly perplexing. Why would God have crafted a plan that requires sin to function? The very definition of sin is a transgression against God. The defining narrative of the Bible is God's conflict with Sin, and his saving of the wicked mankind. God's plan My opponent concedes that God gave man freewill and thus we have a choice to sin or not. This is exactly the point--it is no plan of God that man sins, it's the plan of God to have people worship Him freely. If we were all to stop sinning and worship God His plan would be fulfilled. What God wants is the opposite of sin. I'll end my case here with Proverbs 6:16-19 to show that God hates sin. "There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community."We can now turn to my opponents case and see where it falls short.==Opponents case==Pro contends that worshipping God is not necessary because we can all just pray for forgiveness at our last meal and everything is okay. First of all this has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution, but I will just say that Pro is completely misunderstanding what is required to gain Gods forgiveness. It's a lot more than simply saying "Oh God if you actually exist please forgive me but I'm going to do what I want anyway". It's about true remorse. Pros argument that there would be no purpose for God without sin simply makes no sense. I don't know what else to say other than he's failed utterly thus far to uphold the resolution. Back to you Pro.
Gods plan does requires Sin to function

Without sin, god has no purpose. We are to praise The Lord, attend church, go on being good people in order to received into Heaven. But we don't need to do those things do we? For the way Gods plan is structured a murder of dozens can simply pray at their last meal for forgiveness and be forgiven. That just doesn't seem right does it? Should a person who has dedicated their entire life to being religious be just as fairly treated as the murder of many? God created us? With free will, giving us free will gives us the ability to sin. God allowed the sin because he needs it. Also "You shall have no other gods before me" Exodus 20:3 - Does that mean a child who grew up not knowing about the correct God of The Bible is sinful? I say that if sin did not exist, though it does, there would be no purpose for God.
Gods plan does requires Sin to function

I will be debating that Gods does plan requires Sin to function. Round 1 is accepting the debate. Round 2 - Opening arguments. Round 3 - Rebuttals. Round 4 - Closing arguments. Rules: The rounds must be followed as stated above. There is no need for vast spacing(hitting the enter key many times) between points. Example for proper spacing is the spacing used in this here. Failure to comply with the rules will result in the Pro winning the debate.
The governors of the United States are justified in rejecting Syrian refugees

The issues that pro brings up are the following, "Muslims are more apt to be terrorists than Christian refugees are." I am incline to agree this statement since it should be a comparison of religion since Christian Syrians are just as discriminated against as Muslim Syrians. There is no way to tell whether an individual is a Muslim or Christian, just like as pro pointed out that there is, "no true way to tell if they are a threat to our nation." There is really no real way to determine if an individual will become radicalized without infringement onto the individual's rights. Currently, there is discrimination against a group of people regardless of whether they are American or not and whether they did anything wrong. Consider what is already happening. This is something I received from the White House.The number of Syrian refugees UNHCR has referred to the U.S. Refugees Admission Program: 23,092The number of Syrians the Department of Homeland Security has interviewed since FY 2011: 7.014The number of Syrian refugees who have been admitted since FY: 2,034The number of Syrian refugees resettled in the U.S. that have been arrested or removed on terrorism charges: 0Not only that, but the screening is insanely tough."Refugees are subjected to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States, including the involvement of the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense." [2]I will also make the argument that there is no restrictions of individuals who are more susceptible to terrorism who are coming into the United States from foreign countries, yet there is discrimination against innocent refugees.I apologize for not presenting my argument sooner and in a detailed way since I have been preoccupied with work. With the weekend coming up, I hope to address this issue further.[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov...
The governors of the United States are justified in rejecting Syrian refugees

I would like to start off by stating that yes, my current political party certainly sustains a large amount of heat from media. I would hope that every one would keep an open mind to this debate no matter the beliefs of their own selves. I would like to show how many of these Syrian, Christian refugees have been killed in the process of coming here. Many of these refugees are actually Muslim. I am debating that Muslims are more apt to be terrorists than Christian refugees are, and the problems that i have with allowing the POTUS to bring 10,000 refugees into our country when we have no true way to tell if they are a threat to our nation. To hear my president say that climate change is a bigger threat to this country than all else... it makes me very sad.He says this while we have over 250,000 Christians DEAD in Syria. A large number of the people who would be coming here are Muslims and we have no way to determine which are radical Islamists. http://www.cnsnews.com... Now,as the Con has stated the definition of refugee, I need to clarify that not all of these people our president will bring into our country are refugees. There are ISIS perpetrators and I will state again that we have no way to tell if they are a part of ISIS or a Christian group! I have no problem with helping the small percentage of Christians who need our help, I would love it if we could bring all of them to our country. Unfortunately, there is too much risk in bringing them here. This is my argument and i will encourage those of you who are voting and commenting to keep an open mind to both of our views and to be fair. Thank you Con for making this civil!
The governors of the United States are justified in rejecting Syrian refugees

In the recent events of the horrific tragic in Paris, France of November 13, 2015, the Republican governors are rejecting Syrian refugee settlements in the United States. These states include, but are not limited to Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. The Democratic governor of New Hampshire has joined in on this rejection.I shall be taking the side of con in that this act of rejection is not justifiable.The debate will follow this format:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: PremisesRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: RebuttalsRound 5: ConclusionPlease take this debate seriously and keep it clean. Provide any relevant evidence to support your claims when necessary and keep an open mind going into this debate.
The governors of the United States are justified in rejecting Syrian refugees

The Con of this argument would like to state that if a refugee is able to enter our country our screening process is sufficient proof that these refugees are safe and should be allowed to be brought into my country.I, however, do not trust my own president in these cases of national security. His immigration policies with mexico have shown that, his dealings with Islamic extremists (his father has claimed to be an Islamic extremists), my president has hugged a man who has taken responsibility for the beheading of countless Christian children and fled the country, yet this man supposedly went through vigorous screening.I beg to differentiate on this matter that saying they will go through screening means that they are not Muslims. Con has said, "I will also make the argument that there is no restrictions of individuals who are more susceptible to terrorism who are coming into the United States from foreign countries, yet there is discrimination against innocent refugees." This is a point I can not dispute. We are allowing hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants into this country with no regard to the dangers they pose! Also, as a side note to this topic, there are arguments that say that it is Constitutional to let these people in our country. How is it Constitutional? It is not once mentioned in the Constitution that we should let every person who needs protection into our country. Do you really believe that we should allow terrorists into our country?Over 50 of the Syrian refugees who have already been brought have 24/7 studying, because they are already suspected ISIS members. By allowing these refugees into our country that is what would happen and more... Is the safety of 10,000 Syrians worth more than safety of the hundreds of thousands of American lives who are at stake? We can not take these immigrants and refugees into our country! The biggest reason behind this reasoning is that there is no way to pay for them! We are almost 19 trillion USD in debt.I have some very important questions for the Con that I feel that not only he, but our president as well, should answer before even considering taking these desperate Christians into our country. Where is the money coming from to pay for them? Where are they going to live? How will they eat? How will they get to places? It is not as if these people can bring automobiles with them! These people have not much in the matter of clothes... Who will get clothes for them? How will they get jobs? We can not simply send them to schools to learn trades for free, as this money generally comes from the taxes of Americans (the middle class suffers the most from these taxes as they can barely afford to feed themselves). This is my main argument and I truly wish for answers!
Video games make people aggressive

I'm not talking about rage-quitting of course people get mad form that but it ends in like a second, I mean does it change people's behavior overall. http://www.businessweek.com... OTHER THAN TETRIS WHICH ISN'T VIOLENT I w1ll w1n m@t3 b3c@u53 y010 sw@g and u wot m8. I b3@t u now...... lolooloololollolollolololololololololololololololololololololololololololollolololollolol
Video games make people aggressive

I believe that a lot of people think that video-games make people mad. I'm not talking about rage-quitting because you are bad at the game, I mean in general. I have constructed a test with my friends to see if violent/shooter games make you more aggressive. Half of them played violent games and the other half didn't (the test was for a week). The half that played never played shooter games before and they experienced no difference except for the fact that they now like shooter games. The half that normally played but wasn't because of the test had no difference in their attitude (they wanted to play though...). According to the results of the test no differences were found so obviously that can't be right. I also did my research and 12/18 websites/sources said it didn't cause aggression were as the other six said it did. http://www.debate.org... quote from theguardian.com So until there is more definitive evidence, it doesn't seem right to imply that there is a clear and known effect. And it certainly isn't right to tenuously highlight links between video game use and violent behaviour whenever it is vaguely possible to do so. It detracts from figuring out if there is another underlying cause instead.
Two heads are better than one

Con forfeited, so I'll just say why 2 heads are better than 1. Point 1: Another person to cooperate. This is the meaning of the phrase "2 heads are better than 1". 2 people can accomplish more than just 1. Let's take this example: Bill and Joe are competing against Clara in a trivia game. Bill and Joe has each other to try to figure out which animal out of this list are not poisonous; [Platypus, Gila Monster, and Angolan Python]. Clara's not familiar with the Platypus, or the Python, for that matter, and assumes Platypus is harmless. Bill isn't familiar with the Platypus or Python, but knows Gila Monster is poisonous (its saliva, see sources below), so that's not the correct answer. Joe knows the Platypus is poisonous (its ankle spurs, see sources below), so that's not the correct answer. Joe and Bill talk to each other for a bit, and think "Hmm. If the Gila Monster and Platypus are both poisonous, wouldn't this mean the Python is perhaps a constrictor (which it is, see sources below)?" Joe and Bill choose the Angolan Python, and it's correct. As you can see, 2 people can come up with ideas better than 1 person can. [Sources for different animals used: Python; https://en.wikipedia.org... . Gila Monster; https://en.wikipedia.org... . Platypus; https://en.wikipedia.org... .] I await Con's response.
Islam is not a religion of terrorism

I understand and its completely fine.I will also like to say that my partner here will not be able to respond to my rebuttal, because he should have done that at this round. I know he is on vacation, but that is what sometimes happens. I have also successfully refuted his arguments which are based only on some anti-Islamist sites. The verses my opponent gave are all taken out of context and misunderstood. The conclusion is still the same: Islam is not a religion of terrorism.I thank my partner Microsuck for this great debate, and I think its really unfortunately that my opponent is on vacation (Probably not for him) and cannot do this whole debate. But anyway, it had been a pleasure to have this debate with you. :)
Islam is not a religion of terrorism

This is my first debate. Because I do not find any debates which I can debate, I thought to just start one of my own. The foundation of Islam consists of the Quran and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad, so you cannot argue that Islam is a religion of terrorism just because of what some Muslims have done in the history of mankind. There is no question about the fact that many Muslims have done bad things, but these Muslims do not represent true Islam. These Muslims are basically bad Muslims. Look at the good apples not the bad ones. You will find in every religion, including Atheism, people who do bad things. Just because of that, the whole religion is bad? What about the good things done by the followers of that religion then? As they say: Don't judge the car by its driver. To see if a religion really is a religion of terrorism, you have to look at its teachings and foundations. So, in accepting this debate, you accept that you cannot use the absurd argument that just because some Muslims have done this and that, Islam is a religion of terrorism. What is going to be used in this debate is the foundations of Islam, which are The Quran and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).Rules Round 1 is acceptance only. Round 2 are for arguments only. Round 3 is for refuting the opponents arguments in round 2. Round 4 are more refuting. You can also, in round 4, give more arguments if you want and have more.Definitions Islam: The religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah. [1] Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. [2]References[1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] www.thefreedictionary.com