BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
About God

TA Continued6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause. 7. The universe had a beginning in time. 8. Therefore the universe had a cause. 9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god. 10. Therefore, god exists. [1]For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support. "By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." [2]Here we can see that there has to be an entity controlling time and something had to come before time. That the entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend. He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it has to be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions. [2] My opponent states that we cannot imagine this God doing these things IRL, but we can see that it would be impossible, becasue as Ross argued that God opperates outside of this Dimensional Plane. Thus disproving any zero-net argument out there. Furthering extending across from my last round we can see that my Aslan Argument shows that no matter what that there is a God. Say that X is the greatest thing out of XYZ and their greatness follows in that order. It is clear that if you take X out of XYZ then Y would be the greatest due to Y being greater than Z. Thus showing that no matter what we will always have a Maximumly Great Being no matter how low the Greatness gets. Though we can still see that since God is on a different Plane that W is really God and that W is thus greater than XYZ as. I extend all other arguments.Sources1. (Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995), p. 14.)2. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 76.)
About God

Okay, your argument paradoxically can work for or against you. It can be very appealing for there to be an uncaused causer, but the thing is is that we have no idea of the source for this to happen. The God you imagine there to be, I admit can't be disproven, and I know how people relate to the watchmaker, but we have different means of making thing rather than a God. You can only imagine him to be something that imposes itself, but if you could imagine Him doing this stuff in real life, it would seem unrealistic. I know that you might appeal to the big bang as being a failure of a concept. I won't get into that which I'm not qualified to talk about. I can alwasys imagine a nothingness being a place of something for reality.
About God

A lot of people seem to have this notion that there is a God out there that has been here for all eternity. What I have to question is how does God get around to making the Earth when he has been here an eternity before? Some people say that he has always been, but I don't find that convincing at all. Also, Jaclyn Glenn looks kind of like the wasp humanoid D'vorah from Mortal Kombat with her dark eyes.
The Bible does not express the modern doctrine that once you die, you go straight to Heaven or Hell.

It is in the Christian doctrine that God will judge everyone, and then they will go to heaven or hell. What many people don't realize is that the Bible and Early church did not preach that this judgement would happen right away. Instead, the Bible and Early church taught that all people are judged at the same time, and before that they are not in heaven or hell, but in an intermediate realm.Acts 24:15 says "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."John 3:13 says "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."Psalm 30:3 says "O LORD, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave [Sheol, which signifies a place for dead people]: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit."Combined, these verses indicate many things:1. The "place of the dead (Sheol)" and the pit (Hell) are different. How can someone's soul be brought up from Sheol and not go down into the pit if they are the same thing?2. No man is in heaven yet.3. Both the just and unjust, the Christians and non-Christians will be resurrected.
The Bible does not express the modern doctrine that once you die, you go straight to Heaven or Hell.

I am a supporter of the position that the Bible never says you go to Heaven or Hell right away after death. Do not confuse this with me being a supporter of purgatory. My biases: Young earth creationist with a literal interpretation of most scripture (symbolic verses, such as those in Revelation, are the exception). My beliefs fall most closely to that of Eastern Orthodoxy, but there are some noticeable differences.
god dosnt exist

Firstly, I will address your first assertion. You wrote "well religious people are morons." I don't see why this is relevant to the debate, but in any case, this is a fallacy; an unsound argument with no proof. Therefore, I am forced to consider your first argument invalid. In your second statement, you write something a little more logical, but not by much. "so does god exist? you imbecile." I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the second statement is not part of your argument (although I wouldn't put it past you). Back to your question. You write "so dead god exist?" The short answer is yes. Every building must have a builder and our universe is no different. God created the world.
god dosnt exist

While your argument is not very clear or well written, I will attempt to respond to my interpretation of your words despite their ambiguity. You claim that if there is a God there is no belief involved. This statement is simply and unabashedly ludicrous. Quite the contrary, if there is a God then a person MUST believe in Him and follow his commands. The only way out of being subservient to God is by rejecting Him. If there is a God, He created the world, He created you, and everyone and everything you love. All is from Him, so how can you not be believe in all the other things He commands you? However if you fall back to the absurd notion that there is no God, only then do you have the ability to not believe in Him and not follow His ways, for He does not exist to you.
Affirmative Action

Thank you for your arguement ,however in this day and age affirmative action is not needed and is quite racist despite it's intentions. Think of this, under the policy of affirmative action more qualified whites are passed over to fill a quota of minorities or to make the school seem diverse. This is a shame. I am slightly saddened to see that you belive the struggle to obtain a higher education for our children as a one sided issue, however whites are just as likely to garner colledge debt. P.S. I've been looking around the site, and i think you and I have some work to do on our debating skills, perhaps we should do some short practice debates like this one to improve our skills?
Affirmative Action

Affirmative action protects all kinds of children and minorities from discrimination.The system is inherintly biased agianst minorities and they must be protected by such programs. For instance if a black kid when to school and learned for all of those years, and his poor family had worked all of their lives in hopes that their child could one day become something better, and then have their child's college application denied, that would only mean a lifitime of hard meneal labour for him, and his children.
There is not enough proof to say god exists.

I am not changing the topic Anyway, getting to the argument, god is an eternal being and my opponent claims that there is not enough evidence/proof to declare god's existence. First of all, god does not contradict any of the scientific theories, so god is a plausible concept. God does not require evidence or proof since it is impossible to disprove god in the first place. Follow my logic Person 1: God does exist Person 2: I cannot see him Person 1: He is invisible Person 2: Well, I cannot detect him Person 1: he is undetectable by any of or instraments. Person 2: I Cannot sense him Person 1: He is undetectable by our senses Person 2: Therefore he does not exist Person 2: He exists, simply undetectable by our senses Person 1 has now created a situation and made a claim that god exists. His claim cannot be disproven therefore in person 1's perpective, god exists. In fact, since energy cannot be created or destroyed, we can interpret that god is energy itself. It is really all about perpective therefore we do not need proof for god to exist. Therefore, there is proof to claim that god exists.
Morality is subjective.

Well, that is unfortunate. Pro offered no argument, but I will still give a short one to refute the claim. Saying "morality is subjective" is an objective statement. It is a statement of fact that the instigator is trying to prove. This contradiction alone makes such a claim extremely difficult to defend. Nevertheless, Pro claims that we can observe morality being defined by the outcome of events and how we feel about them. This is not true. The American legal system, for example, legislates numerous moral issues such as murder, divorce, theft, and sexual misconduct. These issues are adjudicated according to an objective standard (the law) regardless of how judges or juries personally feel about them. For example, in 1993 a woman named Ellie Nesler shot and killed her husband who was accused of molesting her son. Many people across the nation praised her actions and called for her acquittal. Despite all this, she was still sentenced to 10 years in prison. In another example, George Zimmerman was found not guilty in the murder of Trayvon Martin, even though many people felt he was guilty. These are just two example that prove we determine right and wrong based on an objective standard, not on our personal feelings. Another problematic implication of claiming that good and bad are defined by how we feel is that we lose all authority to condemn the actions of others. If someone cuts in front of you at the store, you may feel angry and offended. But if the person who cut you feels it was completely justified, then who is right? On a much more extreme level, on what authority do we condemn the Nazis' actions if morality is subjective and based on personal feeling? The Nazis certainly felt that they were justified and right. Of course, this makes no sense. The truly observable occurrence is that we all sense that the Nazis were wrong based on some objective standard of behavior that we believe, at some level, all people should be held accountable to. I hope my opponent does not forfeit the next round.
flat fees, not flat taxes, r the truly conservative approach

My arguments remain largely untouched. PRO did not address my Argument from (1) and inadequately addressed my Argument from (2). PRO has provided no positive arguments, and has made unwarranted assertions. She also attempted to change the rules of debate in R2 by stating "i'm not trying to argue an objective defnition. . i'm arguing for what i view as conservative, and con should argue what he views as conservative". I think I have provided sufficient warrant to believe the resolution false.
flat fees, not flat taxes, r the truly conservative approach

There is, quite literally, no argument here for me to rebut. Questions are not an argument. I could simply redirect the questions, however, I'll simply address PRO's rebuttals, as there is nothing else for me to address.DefinitionDespite PRO's disagreements with it, my definition is the only one that has been presented. No objection has been offered. As such, it stands as the definition for this debate. I would like to note that PRO is now instituting rules in this debate. Rules are to be established before a debate begins, as a matter of conduct. I hope voters will take this into consideration.Revenue ProblemPRO fails to see the conclusion my discussion of revenue reached. Obviously, spending will decrease, as there is decreased revenue. However, I doubt that such a thing can truly be considered "conservative", by any definition. When conservatives speak of decreasing spending, it is meant in the voluntary sense. That is that some portion of what is currently being spent should be taken and placed elsewhere, or saved. "Decreased spending" is a conservative value insofar as that spending is voluntary. It is s not the decision of the conservative to spend less. It is a necessary consequence of decreased revenue. So, to argue that decreased spending due to decreased revenue is conservative in nature is misguided. Not only that, no definition of conservative has been offered by PRO, so I see no reason to consider decreased spending a conservative value. However, my argument was from the statement ""Government’s responsibility is to be the servant", hence me calling this Argument from (2). The argument is that if conservatives believe government to be the servant of the existing ways of life, then they should strive to maintain the existing ways of life that are not in contradiction with their other guiding principles. The existing ways of life are such that government spending is of utmost importance. From public school and welfare to military and prison funding, currently, government spending provides us with some necessary services. A system that diminishes the conservatives ability to act in the servant capacity is a system that will likely be opposed by conservatives. It is not necessarily true, but is more plausibly true than not.Conclusion R2My Argument from (1) remains entirely untouched, and my Argument from (2) was, apparently, misunderstood, or at least I hope so. The rebuttal offered does not affect my conclusion at all. I offered a rebuttal, though I do not think that my argument has been challenged. PRO has not yet offered any positive arguments for the resolution " flat fees, not flat taxes, [are] the truly conservative approach". The only argument that has been offered was after I presented my Argument from (2), where PRO attempts to argue that decreased spending due to decreased revenue is conservative in nature.I look forward to R3 and the end of this debate.
flat fees, not flat taxes, r the truly conservative approach

con merely argues definitions of 'conservative' in his first argument. i'm not trying to argue an objective defnition.. i'm arguing for what i view as conservative, and con should argue what he views as conservative con then goes on to argue teh revenue problem that it may not provide sufficient revenue or have other problems. the thing is, with less revenue, should from a conservative perspective, come less spending. it is truly more libertarian. to get back into the definitional game, the more libertarian the tax structure, the more conservative it is. and, my approach is more libertarian.
flat fees, not flat taxes, r the truly conservative approach

flat fees, not flat taxes, are the truly conservative approach conservatives often push for flat taxes. a set percentage of one's income. but, why not just say that eveyone has to pay the same amount? why tax the richer more just because they make more income? and if this casues more tax to be paid overall on the poor, so be it? these are all the arguments made when it comes down to progressive taxes v flat taxes. we could just extend the arguments to flat fees v flat taxes
Drugs should be illegal

"The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free. It is not freedom to be allowed to alienate his freedom" (Mill). Mill's argument is inconclusive. Everyday, people willingly engage in contracts, giving up some of their freedoms, in exchange for goods, services, or experiences. But lets focus on your claim that drugs enslave people. Do you have proof that drugs enslave people? If, for example, a man uses recreation marijuana for the first time, is he enslaved? Sure, you might argue that marijuana is addictive, but people can be addicted to caffeine. The truth is, people willingly participate in drug use, and just like entering a contract, they accept the terms. You might try to say that contractile slavery is still illegal, but the simple fact is that drugs are no more to blame than Starbucks. Your argument about deaths from smoking is valid, but it is a undisputed fact that drugs are not the leading cause of death. Like I said before, drug violence accounts for a greater number of deaths than a heroin overdose or a coke-head murdering his friend. We can look at the mexican drug war as an example. After Felipe Calderon's crackdown on drugs, "an estimated 70,000 people died in violence related to the country"s ongoing drug war" (FOX News). Legalizing drugs would diminish the black market, and protect innocent lives. I apologize for not mentioning this earlier, but your definition of drugs is vague. Should medical marijuana be illegal? What about those people that abuse painkillers? Should we outlaw those as well? The fact is that you might think cocaine is bad, but in some cases cocaine is therapeutic. Drugs are a broad range of compound and simply saying that drugs should be illegal means that we can't use advil. So I must redefine my argument as well. All drugs need to be regulated, but recreational drug use should be permitted in appropriate amounts (not for me to decide).
Drugs should be illegal

Precisely because you can see a difference in smoking a cigarette and smoking crack means there is a huge difference between the top of the slope and the bottom -- which is why pure slippery slope arguments are always stupid. Let me just ask: Before he serves you, would you prefer that your bus driver or investment banker had smoked a cigarette, or meth? English philosopher, political economist and civil servant John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) said there were some things people could not be permitted to choose to do with their own bodies in a free society: "The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free. It is not freedom to be allowed to alienate his freedom." Drugs enslave people. So do cigarettes and alcohol, you might argue. Indeed, alcohol and cigarettes are likely no better (and probably worse) than many illegal drugs. As Gary Johnson, governor of New Mexico (and only the most recent Republican to figure out that the path to fawning media coverage is to adopt a dumb liberal idea) puts it (as summarized in a fawning article in The New York Times): "Last year 450,000 people died from smoking cigarettes. Alcohol killed 150,000, and another 100,000 died from legal prescription drugs. How many people died last year from the use of marijuana? Few, if any. From cocaine and heroin? Five thousand." Accepting all the drug-legalizers' statistics at face-value, I'll demonstrate that their arguments are still dumb. The 450,000 number refers to all "smoking-related" deaths. A "smoking-related" death is any death that under any circumstances could be connected to smoking, including heart attacks and a plethora of cancers. If an obese 100-year old smoker dies of a heart attack while shoveling snow, his death is placed into the category of "smoking-related." Indeed, the books are so cooked on the "smoking-related deaths" alleged by the American Cancer Society that a 1993 article in the American Journal of Epidemiology was able to show that by using the exact same methodology, smoking SAVES 277,621 lives each year. (The methodology also proves that 504,000 people die each year from insufficient exercise, and 649,000 die from improper diets.) It is known that marijuana smoke, for example, is much worse for the respiratory system than is cigarette smoke. The only reason you don't hear about a lot of people dying from marijuana is that -- well, for one, like the old man shoveling snow, a pot-smoker who dies of emphysema goes down as a "smoking-related" death. Also, people don't smoke pot like they smoke cigarettes. One reason for that is: Marijuana is illegal. Even granting the pro-legalization community their manufactured stats: Assume (correctly) that even legal substances such as alcohol and cigarettes induce dependency, ruin lives, cause disease, depression, countless traffic injuries and fatalities, and increase the incidence of homicide and suicide. This is supposed to be an argument for legalizing other drugs like them?
Drugs should be illegal

"The most superficially appealing argument for drug legalization is that people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies, even if it ruins their lives. Except that's not true. Back on Earth, see, we live in a country that will not allow people to live with their own stupid decisions. I have to pay for the stupid decisions of others". Why isn't tobacco illegal? "Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States" (US Department of Health and Human Services) and "Exposure to secondhand smoke causes nearly 50,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States" (CDC). Secondhand smoking is not something you can control, so are you saying that if drugs effects others that it should be illegal? I would also like to point out that alcohol contributes to a greater amount of "stupid decisions" lol. Furthermore, I would like to say that drug related violence due to the illegality of drugs, outnumbers drug induced death.
Drugs should be illegal

Like everyone else in America, I had never really listened to the arguments of the drug legalization crowd because ... it's not going to happen. These people are like scholars whose area of expertise is an obscure bug in a Third World country. Their theories could be completely insane, but no one cares enough to bother listening to them. The most superficially appealing argument for drug legalization is that people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies, even if it ruins their lives. Except that's not true. Back on Earth, see, we live in a country that will not allow people to live with their own stupid decisions. I have to pay for the stupid decisions of others.