BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is temporal (that is to say God exists in time)

Thank you for your reply. Con says "No I'm arguing that time is Gods creation hence you fail." Con says "Let me make this clear- God is not limited by his own rules and creation ergo God can and I believe that he does exist before time." Con says "It seems that you don't know that logic is nature of God just like love hence God is omnipotent but since his nature is logical and loving he can't be an evil idiot. He can do anything that is within his nature." I had said previously "And yes even God works within the confines of logic, if you object to this, ill give two examples why you can't argue with this" I would say to con 1) God has a rational nature 2) There fore God can't do the irrational 3) Therefore God works within the confines of logic I thank con for re-enforcing my statement about Gods working within the confines of logic Now remember my entire argument rests upon the rationality of God and the refutation of the irrationality of God existing "before" time began. 1) For anything to exist "before" something else can only happen in time (that is to say if X exists before Y, then X exists in a time frame before "y") 2) There was no time before God created time 3) Therefore God existing "before" time is false And 1) There is no time before time exists (This should be a self evident and can't be argued with) 2) Where there is no time, there is no "before/present/future" 3) Nothing can exist before time exists 4) Therefore the claim that God exists "before" time is false Con has not be able to refute the contradiction of his claims about God existing "before" time I would remind Con that I have being very specific about God not existing "before" time in a time context Therefore my argument still is 1) God exists 2) God exists in the present 3) The present exists in time 4) Therefore God is temporal/in time
God is temporal (that is to say God exists in time)

"I'm assuming my opponent would highly object to these statements, but on what grounds would he object ? he would say that are contradictions and thus are false" My Response Would Be: It seems that you don't know that logic is nature of God just like love hence God is omnipotent but since his nature is logical and loving he can't be an evil idiot. He can do anything that is within his nature. "But what if my counter argument was something like 'God is not limited by his own rules and creation' " My Response Would Be: I would say that logic is not Gods creation but Gods nature hence you fail. "My opponent is arguing that 'time exists before time exists' this is completely contradictory and must be rejected." No I'm arguing that time is Gods creation hence you fail.
God is temporal (that is to say God exists in time)

"3) Nothing can exist before time exists" The creator of time can exist before time. Therefore God existed before time. " My opponent has mis understood my argument, I don't argue that God is limited to creation, but my argument rests on logical necessity And yes even God works within the confines of logic, if you object to this, ill give two examples why you can't argue with this 1) God is both Good and evil 2) God exists and doesn't exist I'm assuming my opponent would highly object to these statements, but on what grounds would he object ? he would say that are contradictions and thus are false But what if my counter argument was something like "God is not limited by his own rules and creation" Would he accept that argument ? I doubt it Con says 3) Nothing can exist before time exists" The creator of time can exist before time. Therefore God existed before time. This is just as much of a contradiction as 1) God exists and doesn't exist or 2) X exists and doesn't exist My opponent is arguing that "time exists before time exists" this is completely contradictory and must be rejected. Maybe it would help my opponent if I explained a bit more about what we mean by "before" By before we are talking about the temporal relations between 2 different things (eg time) Maybe my opponent thinks by me arguing that God does not exist "before" the universe this equates to God does not exist at all, if this is your understanding then you have mis understood the argument. My argument is based on a temporal relations to God and the universe/time. For instance if I claim that God is timeless absent the universe and temporal with the universe this is still consistent with my statements of 1) God exists 2) God does not exist "before" the universe My arguments still is 1) For anything to exist "before" something else can only happen in time (that is to say if X exists before Y, then X exists in a time frame before "y") 2) There was no time before God created time 3) Therefore God existing "before" time is false and 1) God exists 2) God exists in the present 3) The present exists in time 4) Therefore God is temporal/in time
God is temporal (that is to say God exists in time)

"1) For anything to exist "before" something else can only happen in time (that is to say if X exists before Y, then X exists in a time frame before "y")" My opponent has completely forgotten who God is. You applied the idea of time which was created by God and limited him to his creation. Let me make this clear- God is not limited by his own rules and creation ergo God can and I believe that he does exist before time. "3) Nothing can exist before time exists" The creator of time can exist before time. Therefore God existed before time. In conclusion my argument is the same
God is temporal (that is to say God exists in time)

.. .. .. . Con says Here is my refutation: 1. God created time, meaning that he existed before time. 2. Ergo God is eternal I refute your first premise "1. God created time, meaning that he existed before time. " my refutation to this is 1) For anything to exist "before" something else can only happen in time (that is to say if X exists before Y, then X exists in a time frame before "y") 2) There was no time before God created time 3) Therefore God existing "before" time is false or to put it another way 1) There is no time before time exists (This should be a self evident and can't be argued with) 2) Where there is no time, there is no "before/present/future" 3) Nothing can exist before time exists 4) Therefore the claim that God exists "before" time is false My argument still is. .. .. 1) God exists 2) God exists in the present 3) The present exists in time 4) Therefore God is temporal/in time Con has not proved my argument to be false, I await any further arguments he might have
God is temporal (that is to say God exists in time)

Here is my refutation: 1.God created time, meaning that he existed before time. 2.Ergo God is eternal. My definition of temporal can be found here: http://dictionary.reference.com... And my focus is this: "enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory ( opposed to eternal)." Yes this is short but I'm curious as to how my opponent will respond.
God is temporal (that is to say God exists in time)

Many God believers , claim that God exists "outside/beyond" time only, I will be arguing that God exists in time My opening argument is as follows 1) God exists 2) God exists in the present 3) The present exists in time 4) Therefore God is temporal/in time Definition of God - Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover * Please note, I am looking for a debate on Gods relation to time, not a debate on whether God exists or not, there fore premise 1 is assumed to be true by both sides If you don't want to assume premise 1 as true, but still want to debate Gods relation to time I am open to suggestions
Debate.org should not have only conduct-votes

I guess I don't really know what to say at this point. This debate was never really a debate at any point. At any rate, if you made it this far, then I commend you and thank you for reading, and once again appologize to you for the disaster this debate turned out to be. If you would like to logically debate this topic with me, PM me. If I determine you are a serious debater I will contact you. I didn't do enough research on my opponent this time around to know this debate would be trolled.
Debate.org should not have only conduct-votes

It seems my opponent has forfeited a round, meaning that this debate is essentially over. My opponent if he decides to make real arguments at all, will now only be able to post them in the final round. At most you can only really get one round of debate here, and thats if Sir FireWings even decides to actually argue at all. With that said, just because he forfeited a round and didn't argue, doesn't mean his side doesn't deserve to be read so you as a voter can come to that conclusion yourself. Don't just throw a conduct point at him, actually read his lack of substance to prove that you did read his "argument" first, that is what this debate is about, and that is my over-arching point. On to the 5th and final round, of this, our main event of the evening.
Debate.org should not have only conduct-votes

Wow, today was the most busiest day of my life. 60 pages of homework (seriously?) 5 test in a day, I just can't do this round. I might make arguments for the nest round, but it is just crazy. Congrats for 145 pages of homework, 24 tests, math competition, and spelling bee. Congrats.Bascially, I pass this round.
Debate.org should not have only conduct-votes

Because Pro is not talking about my framework and premises, I will think that he is agreeing them. Defense 1: Liberty of ChoiceMy opponent says that he can vote for anyone because laziness is important, with my logic. However, I clearly said that laziness does not matter, if the vote is sufficient. A ff vote is suffcient. Nothing wrong about it. No reason to remove it. Some people might not like, it but if it is sufficient, it is totally fine. My opponent says that good debates were effected by ff only votes. Pro fails to rebut that ff votes are sufficient, so there is nothing wrong for them. Pro misses my main point of a ff vote is sufficent, and that is all we need. My opponent says that the Consitiution is irrelevant to the debate. I was merely showing an example that people have the liberty of doing what they want, like right now. Unless it harms others which is basically from the voters view of it not sufficient. Pro fails to actually rebut my Consitiution case, just saying that is irrevelant, when I just merely showed an example. Pro says that is it deserving for ff, if the debate is good, and the voters didn't even read them? Merely, the FF debates are all bad. If they have bad argumentation, do we have to vote arguments? No. If you want to vote arguments, do it. It is just that not everyone needs to follow this rule. It is deserving, because they didn't have time to post, which is their fault. My opponent says I am making an argument for him. Totally false, ff votes might harm the voters, or debaters, but they have nothing to do with it. It is sufficient. No problem if voters think it is a problem. If it is a problem, then we should vote arguments, but this is not a big problem anyways. Then I talk about slaverly. Pro fails to refute this, just saying it is silly that voting goes until slavery. Yes it does here. Pro fails to rebut this, this argument is dropped. Just for this, you can easily vote for Con. Defense 2: Less people will vote. Pro says that them not voting is what we want. He says Dsjpk is one of the worst voters. How is he? He votes sufficiently. Pro says less votes is a good thing, which means more good votes. My point was that, no much bother to vote for argument points, when they can just easily write, FF. This will probably make people not vote, making no one win in forfeit debates. My opponent fails to rebut my framework also.
Debate.org should not have only conduct-votes

Full Resolution: Debate.org's debates should not have only conduct-votes if the debate is over 3 rounds of argumentation, or over four rounds of the debate.Rules1. No forfeiting2. You are allowed to use google docs.3. Min. of voting ELO is 3500, because we need good voters. 4. I am taking this debate with TUF.5. If someone else accepts, they lose.6. You have to follow these rules. Not following these rules makes an automatic loss for the opposing side.DefinitonsDebate.org: This sitedebates: a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.votes: a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands, choosing one side, or a tie.conduct: FFNo strucutre included in this debate. Pro starts at round one, and waives the last round.
Avatar: The Last Airbender is the best cartoon in history

Avatar: The Last Airbender (ATLA) is the best cartoon in history.Best: Of the highest quality; superlative. Format: Semi-structured, relatively informal, but keep it neat. First round is for acceptance. Note that this is explicitly not a debate pertaining to the live action motion picture. Instead it is about the animated franchise.Just for the sake of a fun exchange, I would prefer an opponent who has a specific alternative in mind. Of course, this is merely a preference and you may feel free to simply rebut my contentions.
The United States should adopt a stricter isolationist stance

I agree that we should have less of a presence abroad, but i would argue that isolationism is the WRONG way to go. Isolationism involves not interacting with ANYBODY, no trading, no alliances, no nothing. I would argue that we need a noninterventionist forign policy. 1. We trade with people but do NOT use military force unless we are directly attacked. 2. We remove ALL our troops from other countries, except to get Bin Ladin 3. We remove ourselves from ALL trade agreements (WTO, WHO, UN, NAFTA, Etc.) and open up free trade with EVERYONE. 4. We allow our citizens to trade with whoever and whatever they want. 5. When our citizens leave the country we make it clear to them that we are no longer protecting their safety and will not send the marines after them should they get in trouble.....we may however negotiate. 6. our military should be minimized, we have the greatest military in the world, there is no need to have it huge, keep only what we need for R&D, Border protection, and enough troops for a quick counter attack. 7. we need to get out of Iraq now 8. we don't make alliances with ANYONE...Isreal has nuclear weopans, a borderline terrorist government, and are technically a british problem (they created them, let them protect them). We don't need to sacrifice our standings with the entire arab world to help someone perfectly capable of helping themselves, it's none of our business and it hurts us. Isolationism would ruin this country, Interventionism IS ruining it, we need non-interventionism.
The United States should adopt a stricter isolationist stance

The United States is too worried what the rest of the world thinks of it. The U.N. or another country denounces us and our government does its best not to wet it's pants. Since when does the United States cower before other nations or wait for permission to act. I understand that the UN was created with good intentions but it has become an easy exscuse not to act. The United States cannot sit idly by waiting for permission to defend itself preemtively if need be. Everyone says the Iraq war has been completely unjustified but we have help those people immensely. But the UN said no don't do it. The United States can no longer rely on the UN or the rest of the world. If another country wants to aid the United States then we will accept their help and be there to help if the situation warrants our help. When the Iraq war is over we need to bring every single troop home, begin to guard our borders as we should be doing. Only a small portion of the military should be freed to pursue bin Laden, with more on hand if the situation agains warrants it. Israel is the only country that we would openly make ourselves open to their disposal at any time. If the world feels that the United States is too much of a policeman and is trying to force our policies on others, then we will see how long they last when we are no longer there.
The United States should adopt a stricter isolationist stance

Well played friend and I actually agree with much of what you say. However, free trade could not be beneficial. It is too much of a security risk. We could actually reduce trade altogether by providing incentives for large corparations to bring their factories back to the states which would boost the economy without needing outside help. America didn't always need China or Japan to make our products. Some self instituted trade agreements would be ideal. We also have a huge area to drill for oil if we needed to. Israel isn't a British problem either. Of all our allies they would be the only one I would want to keep. The reason for this is political as well religious, and that's all I'll say about that. Anything that has to do with bringing together the countries of the world and attempting to govern them we should have no part of. It seems these days that so many countries are willing to sacrifice sovereignty for the illusion that world will achieve a total peace. As far as our citizens, if they are attacked, captured, or harmed and they did not commit a common crime then we go get them. When Iran had those American hostages he stated, "The bombing starts in five minutes" and they were freed very quickly. Common crimes include theft, murder, etc. It does not include not being a muslim or anything like that. My whole point is America needs to begin to rely on herself again. We are a self made country and we seem to have forgotten that.
Charizard vs Salamance

Obviously Xbox One is better than PS4. I don't know what in the world people are thinking playing the piece of junk that is the PS4. For the first thing, Xbox has better games than PS4, such as the entire Forza series, Motorsport and Horizon. On top of that,the controller fells much better than the PS4 controller, it feels awkward having two thumbsticks right next to each other. Xbox One is better. And Victorious is better than iCarly, although iCarly was a good show.
Charizard vs Salamance

iCarly was one of the most revolutionary shows ever to grace this Earth. It was the pinnacle of Nickelodeon's creative talents and hard-working actors to make a truly stunning show which would capture the hearts of millions. There have been absolutely no criticisms of this show, it is unflawed and perfect, in fact, IMDB has only 10 star reviews for this show. The comedy used is genius, never being repetitive and always using new gags to entertain the respectable audience. iCarly revolutionised the TV market, with jokes and ideas no one had ever seen before, like recounting the lives of famous fictitious teenagers' lives and milking out a show for a few years. They are always full of witty jokes and hilarious situations, and the character development is brilliant. I would tell everyone I know about this show, but sadly I have no one to talk to because I'm a lonely reviewer on the Internet who makes no money and lives in their mom's basement watching iCarly everyday and moment of their lives. Overall, I'd give this show an 11/9, because it is of a much higher quality and perfection than even the likes of Lazy Town and the Shooting of Harambe. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go jack off to iCarly porn on rule 34 and ship Spencer and Gibby together on Google+.
Black Lives Matter is stupid.

My opponent presented a poorly third round. Yes, what I said is true. I provided evidence. Yes, Eric garner did die. (video of him dying) notice the cop in the greenish shirt. Yes, over 100 people are killed every year by cops (Didn't say black people specifically, but they do make up the majority) https://en.wikipedia.org... official statistics and as you can see, nearly every year, over 100 people are killed by police. There are many cases of which black people get longer sentencing in court systems than white people. https://newsone.com... http://www.abajournal.com... http://gawker.com... Obviously, blacks get longer sentences, not sure if my opponent has been living in a cave all these years, or has never had internet up until now, but it's common knowledge by almost everyone I know that blacks do indeed have it the worst in the court system. My opponent has not provided any proof to his claims, he has only said that the group BLM is stupid. I have provided solid arguments and reasoning why the group was formed, which was for a positive cause meaning that it isn't a "stupid" thing. Rather its for a good cause, but it does have many stupid people in the group, also they do protest some of the wrong deaths like michael brown, trayvon marton, who were thugs, or that 12 year old boy who had a toy gun in his waistband. Those wrong acts of protesting should NOT define what the group was originally based upon, and the idea of the group. Whether you like it or not, Black lives DO matter and the group is not stupid.
Black Lives Matter is stupid.

"First off... It's common knowledge blacks are mistreated by police, and the court system." • Can you verify that this is true? I'm pretty sure this is a lie in itself. You can't keep bringing up these things and not prove them to be true.https://www.youtube.com...... Eric Garner dies (graphic) I watched the video, and is there proof he died? You have to show a link to a autopsy image that shows how he (if he did) died. "BLM is not stupid. There are stupid people within the group. Over 100 people every year are killed by cops."And you can't back that up either.
Black Lives Matter is stupid.

My opponent opens his argument and rebuttals by these statements he made and I do quote "How are Blacks mistreated by cops? Then again, it isn't race that is the factor in how the cops treat Black people,it is how they respond to requests by the officer. " Then he goes on to bring up the Darron Wilson/Michael Brown controversy which I agree is a bad example. However, dead people do not speak, so no one knows what happens, and it's common for police officers to lie. (Personally, I don't care about Brown being shot, he was a thug that was cause on tape). First off... It's common knowledge blacks are mistreated by police, and the court system. My opponent says it's how they respond to the officer and while that is true for the most part, there are lots of online videos clearly showing the officers abusing blacks, taking advantages of blacks. And I will show the readers more than a few sources, including ones I read yesterday from Yahoo's home page. Now let's look at this: "What was disclosed was Darren Wilson, the officer involved, had acted in self-defense and had reason to fear for his life. Brown fought with Mr. Wilson and tried to take his gun." Rodney King gets beaten by multiple cops In this video Police shoot an unarmed therapist trying to take care of his patient Eric Garner dies (graphic) Just 4 days ago people, police planted cocaine in a black mans wallet. How long have they been doing this? And so much more but little characters to work. showing peaceful movements and protests. The group was made for injustice towards blacks by police, and court. Not blacks killing blacks, and yes that's irrelevant. BLM is not stupid. There are stupid people within the group. Over 100 people every year are killed by cops.