BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My opponent can neither disprove gravity nor an almighty God.

"I do not understand the code that my opponent has put forth." It's symbolic logic. "I ask that he put this into compete sentences." If he is Almighty, then he has all powers. If he has all powers, then he has power to create something more powerful than almighty. But, no power to create something more powerful than almighty than almighty is possible. Since we can derive from this that if an Almighty God exists, he has such a power, the premise that such God exists is necessarily false. " My opponent concedes that gravity exists." Correct. I am not attacking that clause of the resolution, only the other one. ": Gravity and an almighty God are logically similar. Both have yet to be scientifically observed" The observation of two objects attracting one another has occurred many, many times. This is precisely what gravity IS, attraction between objects. "Both logically have to exist, however." No, the latter logically cannot. " Every effect in the universe is the effect of a cause. (Cause and Effect) Falling, dropping, sinking, etc. are all examples of the effects of gravity. The cause of these effects are universally linked to gravity. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...... The existence of the universe must have a cause, and it is not unreasonable to assume that it is an almighty God." You're making the unjustified assumption that the universe is an effect. And by definition, since the universe is defined as the totality of existence, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have a cause (such cause would have to exist, and therefore already be a part of the universe). Therefore, it is not an effect. :The argument that God must have a cause, too, is void, because an almighty God is not subject to the rules of logic that it created. The rules of logic, i.e. the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction are axiomatic, you cannot attempt to deny them without making use of them. They are fundamental precursors to anything and everything. Without them, everything both is and is not, there can be no concepts, no definitions, let alone a God. "Further, an almighty God could be outside of the universe (not part of it)" "outside the universe" means "outside existence." Nonexistent.
Reagan was immoral and evil

If you don't mind, I'll just use my opening argument from the other debate that we "had": Ok, maybe "Evil" is too far. But Ronald Reagan has always been the symbol for the GOP, and really both sides of the political spectrum think Reagan represented America. Why? Ronald Reagan is not the moral and worldly guy everyone thought he was. There was a yellow streak down this purple pansy. Example, remember Jane Wyman? This was Ronalds first wife. They were divorced, because during their marriage he was to busy meeting up with a girl named Nancy. Adultry is pretty evil, and it is immoral. How about lying: http://www.youtube.com...... Yeah...Ronald Wilson Reagan (6 letters in each name--666)....(ok that was just a joke).....but really...
Reagan was immoral and evil

DERRICK Z. JACKSON BOSTON GLOBE - In the weeks leading up to his appearance on Capitol Hill, [Desmond] Tutu said in speeches that it seemed that the Reagan White House saw "blacks as expendable" in South Africa. . . On Capitol Hill, Tutu became a public relations disaster for Reagan. Tutu started off the hearing by saying apartheid itself "is evil, is immoral, is un- Christian, without remainder." I was there, and all breathing stopped, without remainder. Tutu continued: "In my view, the Reagan administration's support and collaboration with it is equally immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian. . . . You are either for or against apartheid and not by rhetoric. You are either in favor of evil or you are in favor of good. You are either on the side of the oppressed or on the side of the oppressor. You can't be neutral." Tutu received an unprecedented standing ovation by the committee. Even Reagan's Republican allies told the South African Embassy they would reluctantly support sanctions if Pretoria did not move to end apartheid. Reagan was not moved. Over the remainder of his presidency, at least 3,000 people would die, mostly at the hands of the South African police and military. Another 20,000, including 6,000 children, according to one estimate by a human rights group, would be arrested under "state of emergency" decrees. Yet Reagan had the gall to say in 1985 that the "reformist administration" of South Africa had "eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country." In 1986, Reagan gave a speech where he said Mandela should be released but denounced sanctions with crocodile tears, claiming that they would hurt black workers, who were already ridiculously impoverished. Reagan's go-slow speech was denounced by Tutu, who said: "I found it quite nauseating. I think the West, for my part, can go to hell. . . . Your president is the pits as far as blacks are concerned. He sits there like the great, big white chief of old."
Reagan was immoral and evil

I'm sorry I was under the impression you had a sense of humor... Thank you for correcting my spelling, perhaps you will continue to do so, as to not confuse anyone who may not of known what I was tring to say when I typed "Ronalds" instead of "Ronald's". Thanks. Well the title of the debate is not Reagan was a Bad President. In fact you made it clear you knew what the debate was. So you can type all you want about the many accomplishments of Reagan, but you are not answering to the debate at hand. See, I like to have fun with my life. I like jokes. The 666 thing with Ronald's name, that is one of those jokes. The whole "evil" thing...yeah another joke. I tried to make that clear that I was...joking. Apparently, I need to slow down here. I don't want to adress little things such as more people died during "the time of peace" Reagan's presidency had than any other "peace time". People were dying with our weapons. But this again is not the debate at hand. Was Reagan immoral? For get the whole evil thing, again that was a joke. You reconize that Reagan cheated on his first wife. And you don't thing that makes him an immoral guy? You want to know what a lie looks like? Here's one: After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred. A week later, however, on November 13, 1986 Reagan returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran, but that they were not part of an exchange for hostages. On March 4, 1987 in a nationally televised address to the nation he took full responsibility and admitted that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages." Remember this is really not a debate about the politician. Rather, this is a debate about the man: "It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas." --Ronald Reagan (candidate for Governor of California), interviewed in the Fresno Bee, October 10, 1965 You can continue to defend him. I don't mind. And since you don't seem to mind that Ronald had a "fling", than I guess this will be fun.
Vaccines should only be given to people who want them.

I never heard about them saying they'll give a vaccine to a baby when they're in the womb, but you're free to post a credible source about that if you want. Maybe vaccines should only be given to people who want them, but if you don't get one, you could die. Your argument is kind of like the argument on euthanasia. If a guy wants to get pneumonia and have no defense from it, should he be able to? Maybe, but he's pretty suicidal to do something stupid like that. Here's a video about it: The greatest enemy of people like you is cold hard science that can't be denied. Vaccines have been studied ever since World War Two and we should all thank Sir Alexander Fleming for his great discovery. They are by no means a waste of money- they could save your life. They do not cause disease. Do you want a picture of smallpox? Here's one. Have fun in the gallery of horror! https://upload.wikimedia.org... That's what you get without vaccines. When a baby is in the womb, his parents are in control, and if they want a vaccine for their kids, they can darn well have it. They're in control, they know what's best for their kids. I say, go ahead and let 'em. Vaccines are great.
Smoking cigarettes should become illegal in the United States.

I guess round 2 is just to give a general outline of our arguments. So here is an outline.C1- According to the philosophy of negative rights the function of government is to protect negative rights and cigarrettes banning violates that role,C2- utilitarian argument that justifies legalizing them based on tax revenue.C3- Black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Cigarrettes kill them off sooner, meaning the amount of crime they commit is minimized more than it otherwise would be.C4- Not government's job to legislate moralityI look forward to my opponent's elaboration on his arguments.
Smoking cigarettes should become illegal in the United States.

Before I begin my opening statement, I would like to address the claims con made regarding my conduct. First off, my views on socialism are completely irrelevant to this debate. Furthermore, I can identify myself as a socialist even though this topic somewhat conflicts with socialist beliefs. Conduct also refers to behavior, and I don't see how I have misbehaved in any fashion. If anything, the opponent has shown lack of conduct for contributing an irrelevant argument to this debate in hopes of giving me an unfair disadvantage. However, I still wish my opponent good luck and hopefully the rest of the debate will contain interesting and relevant information!Opening StatementCigarette smoking should become illegal in the United States because it poses threats to the smoker's health, as well as the environment. Second-hand smoke also poses a variety of health threats to bystanders, especially children, who might have little control over their proximity to smokers. Smoking only serves of the purpose of pleasure and relaxation, which cannot justify the amount of lives this practice has destroyed.
Smoking cigarettes should become illegal in the United States.

RulesRound 1: Rules, position clarification, and definitions if needed. Round 2: Opening statements (Limited to outlining facts)Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals. Round 5: Closing statementss (Limited to restating and summarizing evidence from rounds 3 and 4. You can also reiterate your opening statement. )I will be arguing that smoking cigarettes should become illegal in the United States.
Social Networking sites should have age restrictions so children do not use tgem without parents per

Even though my opponent has forfeited I will state my case. The fact of the matter is that in this technological era it is necessary to find a way into technology and things such as Social media are important for children. Not only is it important to use social media, age restrictions would be faulty and unwieldy. Letting kids learn from social media and whether they want to use it or not is important to their later life and age restriction and parent permission are not the same thing you could be 13 and get through the age restriction without your parent's permission, or 10 and get your parents permission but not get through the age restriction,so they can be very different.
Social Networking sites should have age restrictions so children do not use tgem without parents per

I agree that children often do stupid things on social networking sites but being 13 will not automatically make you smarter than a 12 year old and an age gap will only stop them from experiencing what will happen to them in their future. Unless you are a genius that can detect if kids on social media are younger than they say, only a credit card or legal information can prove that a child is under or over an age gap (I suspect around 13 by your reasoning). Children are growing more tech savvy and this will only deter them. Just like adults revealing information on the internet kids need to learn not to expose private information. Most of these kidnappings happen in meetups and not homes anyway. As I said before are youtube , instagram, steam; social media,social media is a very blanket statement.
Social Networking sites should have age restrictions so children do not use tgem without parents per

I do not think it is stupid because children have gotten kidnapped because they put things on social networking sites revealing information, when their parents did not have the slightest information that their children were on that site. Maybe complete genius children could get through a restriction on the Internet, but by what I have learned about the Internet is that it is smarter than most of the average adults, so there should not be a problem with making one smarter than children.
Social Networking sites should have age restrictions so children do not use tgem without parents per

Lets start off by saying your title is misspelled. The internet and the children on it cannot be safeguarded by faulty age restriction sign ups. In the age of the internet age restriction would only be blocking out children from learning about its safety. By stopping children from social networks because you are misinformed about the reasons behind age restriction is stupid. The term social networks seems to blanket over many different categories and would not be physically possible to determine. Children with half a brain would be able to scam these sign ups meaning they would be pointless.
Free will can not exist

My opponent did not post his argument so i will just go ahead and conclude with a single statement "Our free will is not visible and does not have material existence. However, such factors do not render its existence impossible. Everyone has two (physical) eyes, but we also can see with our third (spiritual) eye. We use the former to see things in this world; we use the latter to see things beyond events and this world. Our free will is like our third eye, which you may call insight. It is an inclination or inner force by which we prefer and decide." (http://www.islamanswers.net...) "Man wills and God creates. A project or a building's plan has no value or use unless you start to construct the building according to it, so that it becomes visible and serves many purposes. Our free will resembles that plan, for we decide and act according to it, and God creates our actions as a result of our decisions. Creation and acting or doing something are different things. God's creation means that He gives actual existence to our choices and actions in this world. Without God's creation, we can do nothing." (http://www.islamanswers.net...) Thank you and i urge you vote in firm negation.
Free will can not exist

When looking into the delusional we often find that we cannot compare there decision making ability to that of the normal character. Yes I agree that chemical changes can affect the freedom of a character however; we find that the chemical change do not take away there free will but simply impair the victim from performing there daily activities. My opponent mentioned that " meaning we are in fact a non material being whom is able to manipulate material substance" this practically tells us that the human is not controlled by their material substance therefore they control their material substance thus given them the free will that is been argued in this debate. When looking at this from a psychological view, we find that the human Brian's and particles is not directly linked to there will however we find that the indirect fuel of free will or liberty from the human in other to accomplish its task. although we are bond to the formula of chemistry and physics, we must see that we biologically control these formula thus making it ours. without the free will given to the human, there will be absolutely no laws to bind us.
Free will can not exist

regardless how one feels that his action is carried out by his or her own free will, the truth is chemicals can move you to make decisions for example in the delusional, which many say that one may become love drunk, or delusioned. Chemicals do control the brain, and we do not force these chemicals to act, if we did we would be concluded as not part of the physical body, meaning we are in fact a non material being whom is able to manipulate material substance, though no science can determine that this is true. if we are the ones deciding, then who are we, we are certainly not chemicals, there fore all of psychology and science becomes void, especially in deciding what we in fact are, therefore we can not scientifically deduct that we are in control of chemical reactions which are the driver of all our functions, and are bound by the laws of chemistry and physics .
Free will can not exist

Yes I highly agree that our chemical composition of the brain plays out our individual will however; you must understand that it is our free will that actually forces our brains to cooperate accordingly. When we are faced with different situations like I mentioned earlier, we must use our free will to decide what happens next. We must see that without FREE WILL, our mind cannot decide or work against our free will. first we have to look into the one emotion in which my opponent failed to realize was controlled by free will, the emotion of love. yes I agree that love isn't determined by the free will however we must take into consideration that love cannot advance without the free will to move on and ask the other out. so in conclusion, emotion is a rain carried on by free will (cloud).
Free will can not exist

Yes i agree, will or thought, does play in our choices, though it is the chemical composition of the brain that plays out our individual will, when we think, we are in fact using chemical data, the product of a distinct reaction, psychology has placed emotions, and associated behaviors in certain areas of the brain, where certain chemicals initiate certain thoughts and reactions to these thoughts, without will we still can get the illusion of free will, in which you think your thoughts are in fact incurred by your own will, but in which they are incurred by outside and inside chemical reactions. I would love to be proven wrong, as free will would indicate that thoughts are immaterial, and guided thereby by an outer source, as i previously asked, we can not be located anywhere in the brain specifically, we are in fact, a combined structure in which chemicals react to produce both emotion and thought, thought leading to action also controlled by chemicals in the brain, other wise one would have to assume some immaterial being exists in which is the capability to control physical matter.
Free will can not exist

THANKS FOR THE QUICK RESPONSE When looking into free will, we must find that its is not of physical but of psychology. now in terms of psychology, we must look at the situation in different forms and in doing so, you are able to carefully analyze and conclude. Scenario 1: when transferred into another body, we have to see that your chemical composition is not the same however we often find that the choices we make remain the same. why is this you ask, it is simply because the human body is not in control but the human beliefs are. I agree with my opponent when he stated "I t is defined by the memories and thoughts you have your opinions, and emotions. emotions are what lead to choice and opinions" however; he completely neglected the fact that the free will leads to these emotions. Without free will we simply cannot respond to emotions or have different emotions because it is not part of our chemical composition. Scenario 2: When making simple decisions, I agree that previous experience do play a major role in this but we have to remember that previous experiences often fall under free will. You chose to remember this experience and did not just spontaneously remember it. the simple fact of the matter was explained by a Stephan from http://my.opera.com... in which he states "I like to believe that we have a choice but it doesn't always seem so". This statement shows that although it might not seem like it but we are controlled by our will and not by our chemical composition. Scenario 3: finally we have to look into the book HUNGER GAMES by Suzanne Collins and position ourselves in the main characters situation, we find that when threatened by danger, it is our WILL to live that might save us and not our chemical properties. the simple truth to this matter is that it does not matter how much our chemical composition changes or play a role in decision making, overall we as the master must choose to react or not to react simply by the use of free will. I AWAIT YOUR RESPONSE
Free will can not exist

Although i would like to agree, these chemicals in our brain, You the being is made of, are not under our control, in fact the person who has free will is not defined by body truly, because you would still be you in another body. I t is defined by the memories and thoughts you have your opinions, and emotions. emotions are what lead to choice and opinions, which saying truly, chemicals produce these emotions, and our reactions due to outside stimuli, and possibly thought. Now, if you had the choice to make over one restaurant to another, it is the seratonin, and numerous other chemicals that make you happier to go to one, in fact this means that you can actually be edged into making a choice and slightly but surely be restrained from the other, due to chemical input, which may i add is also the makeup of our memories, chemical input, firing synapses. It is even possible to be come addicted to a certain method of choice emotion and thought, this is what you call opinion, which is really addiction to certain chemicals necessary to experience emotion. Also a being can not say they have free will, because we are chemicals alone according to science, meaning these chemicals react as they should, they do not make choices, if you restarted your life you would respond the same way and think the same way, as you are in the same conditions. The being my opponent refers to is the spirit, not the chemically bound body, which may i add is not accepted by science.liberty may give you the right but that does not mean you can truly use this right for you choosing is in fact a freedom, i would like to ask my opponent, is free will ever limited at all, for if it is, this means that you are not truly free, freedom is defined by you ability to act or speak etc without restraint or forced hand. And though it may seem on your level that you are bending your emotions, may i add, that you may not act without the chemicals that make up you, there fore they determine your actions simply put this is already a lost battle for my opponent, science already agrees with this. you keep saying being, what being do you speak of, and who is this one who can bend all of his own actions, where is he located, isolate this man for me. If you cant tell me who you are, which may i add professionals don't even know, wont except that we are in fact free, the current scientific belief is we are a random act, or that we are a cog in a wheel so to speak.