BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Problem of Evil

I would first like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as well as thank wiploc for setting this debate up with me. I don't totally agree with the definitions of evil and good, but I will accept them because I am by no means looking to get into a semantics debate and I don't believe my opponent is either. That being said, I was a little surprised wiploc decided to defend the logical problem of evil. The LPoE says that there is a logical contradiction between evil and the Judeo-Christian God (tri-omni God). That is to say that evil and the Judeo Christian God can not exist together, not just that it is improbable, but that it is actually impossible. Wiploc assumes (in his argument, not definitions) that (a) a good being eliminates evil insofar as he can and that (b) there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. But why should the theist accept (a) or (b)? However, the logical argument from evil doesn't properly factor in human freedom or God's underlying reasons or overarching purposes.In response to (a) it is logically possible that God has morally sufficient reasons (perhaps which God alone knows) for permitting (even horrendous) evils. In response to (b) It is logically possible that God cannot create significantly free creatures who never sin.I would respectfully ask for a source for what my opponent has said Plantiga says. Usually I have no problem with people not including sources, but I only ask for it this time because I have a source in which Plantiga says, "it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil." [1]We must distinguish between logically-possible worlds and feasible worlds for God to create. While a sin-free human world is logically/theoretically possible, it may not be feasible for God to create it since it is up to humans to respond to God's grace and love.Atheist philosopher William Rowe: "Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim." [2]William Alston writes, "It is now acknowledged on (almost) all sides that the logical argument is bankrupt." [3]Wiploc has given five possible responses, but I have used none of them. I showed that my opponent made two faulty assumptions. He has to show that evil and God are logically contradictory. However, if it is even possible that God has morally justifiable reasons for allowing the evil that he does, than that is enough to defeat the logical problem of evil which is what my opponent wants to debate. Thank you and I look forward to hearing my opponents next argument.[1] Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 31[2]William L. Rowe, "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,"American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (October 1979): 41n. [3] "The Inductive Problem of Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition," Philosophical Perspectives 5 (1991): 29.
Darth Vader did not deserve redemption.

If you have seen Return of the Jedi, you know that Vader 'redeems' himself by throwing the Emperor into a crevasse in the Death Star thus saving his son, then after he dies, is able to stand among the Jedi again. I do not think he deserved it. Thus, the polar opposite of my stance that my opponent will have to defend is that Darth Vader did deserve redemption. I'll ask that someone with Expanded Universe knowledge, as well as movie, accept this debate. This will be the first of many Star Wars debates, as I haven't been interested in many recent Challenge debates. Darth Vader did not deserve his Jedi redemption. He committed too many atrocities for just 1 act of heroism to make up for it. Vader's death count probably exceeds the millions, most by way of his orders, but still a considerable amount (probably in the thousands) by his own hand, many of which were his fellow Jedi. If you've seen Revenge of the Sith, you already know that when Order 66 came into place, he, along with the 501st, marched into the Jedi Temple and slaughtered hundreds of Jedi, including younglings. After being put in the infamous suit, he launched a massive Jedi hunt, personally going on hundreds of missions searching and eventually killing any he found. Along the way he annihilated any possible resistance. In his many campaigns, he ordered Orbital bombardments on cities, publicly tortured citizens, killed his own troops, and allowed the slave trade to continue even though he himself had been a slave and vowed to free them. His actions alone would probably dwarf all Earth dictators and tyrants and the deaths they caused for entire centuries. Yet, all he had to do for the Force to forgive him was kill AGAIN, by way of killing Palpatine. Here's the rub though: he didn't kill Palpatine (this is something any EU fan would know). Palpatine did not die in the trenches of the Death Star. Rather, one of his many clone bodies died, while the Force energy of Palpatine survived and only went back to a secret Cloning facility and inhabited another body. The real hero for Palpatines death would be one of his disgruntled cloners who poisoned the bodies for a large amount of money, and was then later killed by the Crimson Guard. So really, Vader accomplished nothing by doing that. Even if it had been the end of Palpatine, the Empire did not ever really lose. It survived through the Imperial Remnant, past the Yuusang Vong war, all the way 125 years after ROTJ to the reign of Darth Krayt, who again took over the Galaxy with it. So what did Vader do to save his soul? He simply saved his son. Somehow, 1 life seemed satisfactory to make up for millions? And still Trillions more in the years after? I don't think it adds up. His one act does not make up for all the other horrific ones he committed. So Vader does not deserve his redemption, but should have gone down like any other Sith.
Darth Vader did not deserve redemption.

I would also like to clarify that the movies, books, TV shows, and other interactive programs of Star Wars are mostly Canon, UNLESS stated otherwise by George Lucas himself. My stance is that Darth Vader deserved redemption. Darth Vader deserved the redemption that he deserved. But it wasn't a widespread redemption as you speak of. It was only accepted among a few people including Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie, Lando, and possibly a few others out of hundred billions of people. So it was not complete redemption; it was very minimal. You must remember that Darth Sidious was behind most of what Vader did. He twisted his young Jedi mind back on Coruscant back in 10 BBY (I think that is the correct date). Sidious/Palpatine was in charge of everything. And although Vader did not kill Palpatine, he basically shut down the whole Empire, only because of Palpatine's first death. He did a great thing by freeing all those people then instead of delaying it. He basically shut down tyranny, destroyed a thousand year plan, and ended the slaughter of what could be, in the future, billions of more people. Also, he had some importance in him (Vader). He was a Jedi turned Sith turned Jedi. He was truly a savior of the Republic. He carried on that title, but in a different form, through his Empire days. A Jedi was valued in both Republic and Empire. I know that his Jedi-ness about him made him a redeemable person because a Jedi was worth the conversion from the dark side. I have one or two more arguments but I am saving them for the next round.
Jerry Kramer should be in the NFL Hall of Fame

My opponent's original contention is as follows: "Jerry Kramer should be in the NFL Hall of Fame." When I pointed out the absurdity of this contention, my opponent declared the following: "The definition of 'should' that I used in this debate is 'ought'. 'Ought' is another auxiliary verb, which can be 'used to express duty or moral obligation' ... My stance is that it is the duty or obligation of those who vote for the Pro Football Hall of Fame to induct Jerry Kramer into said Hall of Fame. They 'should' do this." Notice the subtle changes in language that my opponent has attempted to slip by you, dear reader: "My stance is that it is the duty or obligation of those who vote for the Pro Football Hall of Fame to induct Jerry Kramer into said Hall of Fame." I. Here he has changed the wording "NFL Hall of Fame," an apparently fictional entity, into "Pro Football Hall of Fame." If the two were truly synonymous, why would he feel the need to modify his phrasing? Thus, aside from being utterly incapable of demonstrating that they are in fact synonymous when they are in fact not, he has inadvertently conceded the point by changing the language. II. Even if we were for amusement's sake to reword the verb "should," to a phrase such as "has a duty or moral obligation to be," the original contention comes out thusly: "Jerry Kramer has a duty or moral obligation to be in the Hall of Fame." This is essentially the exact same contention as before the rewording! In conclusion, Pro's contention remains absurd, for the same reasons expressed in the previous round. I yield the floor.
Jerry Kramer should be in the NFL Hall of Fame

Thank you for accepting this and posting an argument. You said: "I. There is simply no such thing as an "NFL Hall of Fame." There is a "Pro Football Hall of Fame," which places an emphasis on the NFL, but it is neither owned by nor exclusively dedicated to the NFL. As such, Pro's contention makes no sense." You're right, it is officially the Pro Football Hall of Fame. However, the Pro Football Hall of Fame has an emphasis on football in the United States. What is the primary football league in the Unites States? The National Football League (NFL). There is only one player in the entire Pro Football Hall of Fame who never played in the NFL. Billy Shaw is the only Pro Football Hall of Famer to never play in the NFL. Instead he played for the Buffalo Bills before the AFL-NFL merger (1). Therefore, Shaw technically played for a non-NFL team, but that same team later joined the NFL. Since the only player in the Hall of Fame who did not officially play in the NFL played for a team that later did join the NFL, it is not absurd to call the Pro Football Hall of Fame the NFL Hall of Fame. You said: "II. Even if my opponent were referring to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in his contention, Jerry Kramer has never been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, therefore Jerry Kramer does not belong in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Only individuals who have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame should in fact be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame." Should (auxiliary verb): 1. pt. of shall. 2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased. 3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that. 4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize.(2) The definition of "should" that I used in this debate is "ought". "Ought" is another auxiliary verb, which can be "used to express duty or moral obligation" (3). My stance is that it is the duty or obligation of those who vote for the Pro Football Hall of Fame to induct Jerry Kramer into said Hall of Fame. They "should" do this. Citations: 1. http://www.profootballhof.com... 2. http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Jerry Kramer should be in the NFL Hall of Fame

My opponent contends that Jerry Kramer should be in the NFL Hall of Fame. I refute this contention as absurd. Counter-arguments: I. There is simply no such thing as an "NFL Hall of Fame." There is a "Pro Football Hall of Fame," which places an emphasis on the NFL, but it is neither owned by nor exclusively dedicated to the NFL. (1) As such, Pro's contention makes no sense. II. Even if my opponent were referring to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in his contention, Jerry Kramer has never been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, therefore Jerry Kramer does not belong in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. (2) Only individuals who have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame should in fact be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. (3) Citations: 1. http://www.profootballhof.com... 2. http://www.profootballhof.com... 3. http://www.profootballhof.com...
Does God Exist

1. Burden of proof- Let's start with the obvious argument my opponent will have to address. Where is God? Why can't we see God? Why does he not reveal himself in the age of cameras? What does the Christian God have against gays? Alright, now I know what my opponent might say to counter these assertions, but I will leave my counter argument hear. If my opponent tries to claim that there is intelligent design, and the universe originated from a designer; who created the designer. Who created God? My opponent can say that God had no creator, but this would be false, because there is already a logic here that one must follow. The logic is that everything created must have a designer. Than the designer must have been created? The logic would have to stay consistent. 2. Representation- For an intelligent designer, he is quite pathetic at getting the message across that he himself is the all powerful God. Clockwise from the North Pole, they are: Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Wicca and some other Neopagan religions, Zoroastrianism, and Druidism. http://www.religioustolerance.org...... Christianity- 2 billion people Islam- 1.2 billion people Hinduism- 900 million people Buddhism- 350 million people Sikhism- 25 million people Juche- 24 million people Judaism- 14.6 million people Baha'ism-7 million people Jainism - 5 million people Shintoism-4 million people http://www.osmeb.com...... My opponent could say that this links to an intelligent designer. It doesn't. Many of these religions listed are polytheistic.
Does God Exist

I accept.I, as Pro, will be arguing that God exists and Con will be arguing that God doesn't exist.INTRODUCTION Since Con as instigator didn’t provide any definition or didn’t set the rules etc., I will do instead. Definitions God: (As we agreed under comments) the creator and the ruler of the universe. Universe: the totality of known (or supposed) objects and phenomena throughout space (i.e., space-time).[1]Logic: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.[2] Logical Fallacy: false reasoning; a reasoning that doesn’t logically prove a claimed conclusion. Burden of Proof (BOP) BOP is shared (as we agreed under comments)."A fundamental principle of logic is that when one makes an assertion (whether it is a negative or a positive assertion) it is their sole responsibility to prove that the assertion is true." (An addition is made under parantheses which is compatible with the context of the source.)[3] The resolution is a question: "Does God Exist?". Con claims that "No, God doesn’t exist".Pro claims that "Yes, God exists".Since both "No, God doesn’t exist" and "Yes, God exists" are two different assertions, then both Con and Pro have full BOPs to prove their claims. In other words, BOP is equally shared.Therefore;1. Points for arguments will go to debater who provides more convincing arguments to prove their claim than the other debater. 2. In case none provides sufficiently convincing arguments to prove their claim, then the one who provides more convincing rebuttals to other debater’s arguments wins the points for arguments. 3. The arguments are tied otherwise. Rules and Conditions 1. IMPORTANT!! Follow the definitions. 2. IMPORTANT!! Voters MUST vote for arguments according to BOP conditions as explained above. 3. Use logically consistent arguments. Logically fallacious arguments are unacceptable. 4. The following link will be considered as a reliable source for logical fallacies: http://www.toolkitforthinking.com.... I will look forward to Con’s arguments in round 2 and wish them best of luck. [1] http://www.dictionary.com... [2] Def. 1 & 3 in http://www.dictionary.com... [3] http://www.foothill.edu...
Gun control

First, Off I am not advocating that a random person being able to buy a weapon legally, I do not want people that have violent felonies to have firearms legally or illegally. I want people that are law-abiding to have firearms that want to express and enjoy their second amendment right. I want the government to be able to track firearms that were purchased in a public store, But a private sale of a firearm should not be tracked because of the fact that the government would have to much power at that point and it would just lead towards the explosion of the black market of guns. Can you actually give me some statistical evidence that we should have stricter gun control or are you just going to spit out hypotheticals and twist my words around. I thought this was going to be a good debate but apparently, I thought wrong
Gun control

Do you have a license or permit as required? Is you're gun registered? Was it transferred to you in a way that's on record somewhere? Is there a process for dealing with violations and infractions in your state? Then no, I don't have a problem with any of your hypotheticals. What I have a problem with is people who talk about "law-abiding citizens" while advocating against measures that ensure a person is law-abiding or a citizen. Or anyone who's firearm needs require that their gun be unregistered or untraceable.
Gun control

That kid situation can be easily solved if parented your brat. Second, Off that is what you want to do with your firearm that is not on me. Here I can also sling some hypothetical questions at you. I am a law-abiding citizen who needs a gun to protect my family, What guns are illegal what do I do now. Hi, I am a law-abiding citizen who wants to protect their property with a shotgun, What they made shotguns illegal, Well then why do the criminals still have them, This is unfair. Hi, I am also a law-abiding citizen I live in a rough part of town and I am in fear for my safety can I apply for a conceal carry license, I can't well can I at least open carry I can't well looks like I am screwed. Do you have a problem with these?
Prostitution Should be Legalized

Prostitution should be legalized, but be carefully regulated. Laws should protect prostitutes from abuse from their bosses and clients. All intercourse must be protected with condoms, and prostitutes must not have any STDs, STIs, or STVs. Rates must be regulated, and lack of paying will be considered rape in a court. Definitions (Dictionary. com): Prostitute: a man or woman who engages in sexual acts for money. Legal: appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law. Sex: sexual activity; interactions intended to result in the sexual pleasure of at least one of the involved parties. Regulate: to control or direct by a rule, principle, or method. Rules 1. No trolling or semantics 2. Forfeiture permitted, however if either party forfeits, they must explain why in the comments 3. Be respectful of others' opinions 4. Arguments and rebuttals are to be based on research, not opinion alone 5. If rules or format are broken, the respective party must forfeit the next round Format (organized by rounds): 1. Rules, definitions, format, introduction to topic, and acceptance 2. Arguments and opening statements; no rebuttals 3. Arguments and rebuttals 4.
Prostitution Should be Legalized

Prostitution is an old job that employs many educated and uneducated people alike[2]. Yes, it is a job, by definition[4]. If prostitution were legal, more men and women would be able to have jobs they enjoyed[5]. Unfortunately, the sex-trade is unregulated. Prostitutes are often physically abused by their bosses[3]. If the profession were to be regulated, or at least recognized and offered legal protection from the government, they would be able to get help to end the abusive relationship, and hopefully never have a boss who would abuse in the first place, without getting themselves in trouble. Prostitution is legally considered a crime, which is why many women who want to quit their jobs because of this aforementioned abuse are afraid to do so[3]. However, it should not be a crime. The thought that it is illegal to systematically charge for something some people randomly give out for free is ridiculous. It should not hurt anyone, as all participating parties have consented. In fact, it is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year. While the spread of disease and other detriments are possible in the practice of prostitution, criminalization is a sure way of exacerbating rather than addressing such effects. We saw this quite clearly in the time of alcohol prohibition in this country[1]. If properly overseen, no one would be stolen from or financially, physically, or mentally damaged in any other way in prostitution. Things can"t get any better until people in this business can get equal rights. Sources: [1] http://www.history.com... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.womenslaw.org... [4] (From dictionary.com) a piece of work, especially a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price [5] "We chose sex work after we did a lot of things we couldn't stand. Sex work is better. For me, sex work isn't my first choice of paying work. It just happens to be the best alternative available. It's better than being president of someone else's corporation. It's better than being a secretary. It is the most honest work I know of." -Veronica Monet, Prostitute and Author, in Gauntlet Magazine, 1994 [6] http://prostitution.procon.org...
Bhutto's assanination was as predictable as the the sun coming up tomorrow

< > LOL! Hardly, I was just trying to be polite as you clearly fabricated your statistics. Thankfully, the gloves are off now. < > Your assessment of the situation is crude are hardly accurate. < > Hence the "1/1000 chance". Got it! I wasn't questioning the actual event having taken place. I was questioning some of your additions to the facts. < I sure dont>> I was clearly letting you know that I have some obvious insight to her situation and cannot predict my assassination; nor can anyone else. < > Again, you are wrong. I was born and raised in San Francisco. I lived there for twenty-nine years and despite all of the propaganda and rumors, discriminations against gays exists even there, with which I have first-hand experience. < [blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... This threat may have been the final straw that led to her elimination.>> Yes, it "MAY" have led to her elimination, but the same could be said about what she had for lunch that day. That does not make her assassination predictable. < > Sure. I completely agree with you, but the topic of this debate is: < > The Sun has been coming up everyday for as long as I have been alive. I can say with absolute certainty that, "The Sun will come up tomorrow." I can say this every single day of my life and it will happen because it has happened countless times. Bhutto's assassination did not happen every day, it happened just once, so there's no possible way that it "was as preditable as the Sun coming up tomorrow". You see, "as" is an adverb meaning: to the same degree, amount, or extent; so you cannot logically apply the prediction of something as consistent as the Sun's daily rising to a one-time assassination. Thanks for the debate. I hope we can be friends some day! I'll even settle for friendly. Have a great weekend!
Bhutto's assanination was as predictable as the the sun coming up tomorrow

Forgive me, but I do not know what to make of your post. I see a lot of questionable figures and news articles without links to support them. < > Where did you draw the "1/1000 chance" statistic and the statement that follows? Bhutto was hated. So what? I'm a bi-racial gay atheist, so I know what it's like to be hated too. That doesn't mean my death is predictable.