BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are no valid arguments for creationism

"How can you be certain that the laws of physics and logic are not subject to a universe? You will have to show evidence that the laws of our universe are applicable to other universes." They are subject to the universe; however in the universe reference frame this debate takes place in must have the same physics and logic. This is because it was spawned from our universe; the laws of physics and logic of ours can't be changed so any universe spawned from ours must have the same logic and physics."Besides, you're assuming the multiverse theory to be true. This is arguably an as unfounded assumption as the existence of God and the likelihood of creationism."you are correct that I am assuming the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it's not as unfounded as the existence of God or creationism. The reason for that is that it was based of quantum mechanics; a theory that has been confirmed many times. It also solves several problems in quantum mechanics including most quantum paradoxes, Schrödinger cat, the EPR paradox, and the observer problem. Since it is able to solve these problems, is derived from quantum mechanics, and can be falsified once we have equations for quantum gravity and the theory of everything; it is much more likely than the existence of God or the likelihood of creationism.ConclusionIn the reference frame of another universe whose reference frame this debate is taking place in; it has been proved that there are no valid arguments for creationism.
There are no valid arguments for creationism

"If you wanna go down this route then in another universe there is an omnipotent being responsible for the creation of life."This argument is faulty for the reason that it has to be physically possible. An omnipotent being causes the omnipotence paradox and thus cannot be a possibility. Therefore their isn't another universe where an omnipotent being was responsible for the creation of life because it is an impossibility.
There are no valid arguments for creationism

So it turns out I got my terminology wrong; luckily I have an argument that will rectify my mistake: the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics there is an enormous number of universes and that every possible outcome of a cause will occur in some other universe. So that means that there is also a universe where "valid argument"means the same thing as sound argument does in this universe. Since the universe that this debates frame of reference is in was never specified; I will now specify that universe: whichever one has a valid argument meaning the same thing as a sound argument in this universe. With the frame of reference specified, it is now safe to say that my argument is valid and sound.
There are no valid arguments for creationism

Con has given one argument for creationism. I will now show the flaws in it."p1-God exists"This statement is an assumption that is impossible to prove. The core premise of this argument is based on God existing; there is a pretty good chance God doesn't exist; since it isn't certain God exists the whole argument is invalid. "p2-God is omnipotent"Relies on the assumption that God exists which is fundamentally unprovable and certainly not certain; hence this premise is also invalid."p3-an omnipotent being is capable of creation"One of the only two true premises."sc1/p4- God is capable of creation"Only if God exists which as stated above is far from certain."p5- the Torah and Bible are true"An unwarranted assumption."p6- the Torah and Bible claim God is responsible for creation"The second true premise."c2- God is responsible for creation"Based on unwarranted and fundamentally unscientific assumptions.CONCLUSIONOnly two premises are valid and neither can prove creationism without four other invalid assumptions. Conclusion: this argument is inherently flawed and invalid.
There are no valid arguments for creationism

I accept the position of con. I will show there are valid arguments for creationism. Terms: Valid argument - a deductive argument whereby the assumed truth of the premises guarantees the necessary truth of the conclusion. Creationism - the belief that all life was created by an omnipotent being. The position that there is NO valid argument capable for creationism is false because what follows is a perfectly valid deductive argument for creationism. p1- God exists p2- God is an omnipotent being. p3- an omnipotent being is capable of the claims of creationism. sc1/p4- God is capable of creation p5- the Torah and Bible are true p6- the Torah and Bible claim God is responsible for creation therefore... c2- God is responsible for creation
Schools distributing condoms to students

REFUTATIONSCon again seems to only present evidence that favours his case, however, if we look at the big picture, we see the entire word is actually con-dumb. As such, the dumb is negated and schools are in fact distributing smart to the students.Babies do not make the world go round, rather, over one million and two hundred thousand people agree with me that Nas (with the help of Chris Brown and the Game) make the world go round, as we can see in the video to the right.Con's case vis-a-vis God using contraception only re-affirms my position. Con concedes that if God had used a condom, Jesus would not have been born. If a condom is 100% effective in stopping God's seed, then there must absolutely no risk of unwanted pregnancy or STI transmission when used on mere mortal teenagers.CONCLUSIONIn all seriousness, I have shown that the availability of condoms is not a detriment to students as Con states due to the fact that it does not increase sexual activity among students and is 72% more effective than not using a condom at all in terms of unwanted pregnancy and STI transmission. I have also proven that a large majority (81%) of condom availability programs mandate parental consent before the student is allowed services such as acquiring condoms, meaning the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit is not infringed upon. Lastly, it was clarified that sexual education programs that include condom availability do not exclude abstinence as a solution, but merely present protected sex as an alternative to unprotected sex knowing students will never all choose abstinence. Thus, as I have refuted Con's final three arguments he chose to present in the final round and Con conversely has dropped all three of my above contentions, I urge a Pro ballot.Stay safe. Thank you.http://www.youtube.com...
Schools distributing condoms to students

My opponent reasserts his claims. .. He completely forgets, however, about the fact that "condom" has the word "dumb" in it, and therefore, they should not be distributed to students who are trying to get an education and become SMART. Such a practice would be very counterproductive. Moreover, with condoms, students' baby-making abilities are blocked. And as we all know, babies make the world go round. As evidence: . http://www.youtube.com...Lastly, God hates contraception. If He had used contraception, Baby Jesus would never have been born. Without Jesus, there would be no Christmas (and no presents. ) I'm sure the opponent would agree with me on this matter, since he is no Ebeneezer Scrooge. Much thanks to PRO for his strong, engaging argument. Now that I have brought up these new claims, though, his argument has been completely countered. I cannot see how he could possibly retort effectively against such a strong case.
Schools distributing condoms to students

These are the premises for the "Con" claim: 1: It must be noted that the effectiveness of condom use is very exaggerated. Improper implementation, something which school-age teenagers are more vulnerable to than the average male adult (due to intoxication or lack of experience), causes condoms to be extremely ineffective. One must remember that, with typical condom use, 18% of women become pregnant. [1] Hence, the availability of condoms often gives teenagers a false sense of security when engaging in intercourse, while encouraging such activity to take place. 2: Presenting condoms to students in a publicly funded environment will offend students of a wide range of faiths and their respective families, including those of the Catholic faith, many of those of the (Orthodox and Conservative) Judaic faith, and many of those of the Protestant faith. [2] By giving students access to condom and encouraging their use, public schools are interfering with the fundamental religious beliefs of students and their families. 3: By teaching students about both abstinence and use of contraception, school programs are sending mixed messages to students. If the school wants them to not have sex, why would it give them condoms that they could use as contraception during intercourse? Hence, the distribution of condoms contradicts a school's attempts to promote abstinence. Moreover, the distribution of condoms leads to increased sexual activity among students; an increased level of sexual activity among students may lead to situations in which they may be physically hurt or exploited, due to their lack of mental maturity and physical vulnerability. Condom distribution in schools leads to a false sense of sexual security among students who lack experience with condom use, imposes ideas that contradict the religious beliefs of many students and their families, and sends a contradictory message to students that ultimately encourages them to engage in more sexual activity. Therefore, "Con" is the far superior position. Thank you, and I look forward to the opposition's refutations. [1] . http://www.youngwomenshealth.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Schools distributing condoms to students

I will be assuming the affirmative position, arguing that condoms should be made readily available to students in middle schools and high schools. DefinitionsI accept the definitions and terms for the most part, however, I request that "distributing" be changed to "making readily available" to avoid any semantic arguments such as mandates for students to accept condoms, etc. If Con disagrees, I ask that he respond in the comments before posting his first round to avoid potentially unnecessary effort. I eagerly await my opponent's response.
Schools distributing condoms to students

No slandering. All assumed rules of standard debate conduct apply. Con is arguing against condom distribution in schools, and pro is arguing for condom distribution in schools. (Definitions:) "Schools": Secondary and middle school educational institutions in the United States "Students": The learners who are enrolled at the aforementioned institutions "Condoms": Barrier device used for the purpose of contraception during sexual intercourse "Distributing": Passing out; Delivering The first argument of both sides will be exclusively allotted for the opposition's acceptance notice, terms of debate, and definitions of words relevant to the foundation of the debate. Thank you.
prostitution

I accept. First of all the majority of 12 year old ar any age child prostitute is there involuntarily. Non voluntary prostitution would still be illegal. Also legal prostitution would only be legal for 18 and older. No minors. if it were legal it could be better regulated so as not to spread as much disease and make it safer so the women involved arent managed by dangerous pimps. We could add a law that persay says that it is illegal to be involved in prostitution if you have an STD. then we could just go after those people. Prostitution could be one off the check boxes when you go for a physical snd if the doctor sees it they can make you get regular tests. Also nobody said that you should sell your body for sex. Its a terrible idea actually. but it shouldnt be illegal or criminalized. Many women in prostitution actually have people to support and prostitution is a last option. I would want to help them find a better option but if thats what they go with im notnfoing to fine them or arrest them and put their family in an even worse position. Probably the most imprtant reason it should be legalized is that it lets customers get rid of sexual urges. These actually has been shown to correlate with lower rates of sexual assault and rape. I would rather have legal prositution in my town then women getting raped. http://www.washingtonpost.com... Also, it is your body and you do what you want with it. Nobody can tell you any different.
prostitution

ok first of all if u listen to a song called fight the silence by for today and you watch the video it will tell u almost everything that is wrong with it yeah you may make 32 billion dollars but is it seriously worth selling your body for its called get a real and good paying job not sell your body 12 year old girls are out there doing that wen they could just get a summer job selling your body is not the answer its wrong and stupid would u liked to be forced to have sex 20 to 48 times a day?
Creationism is the best theory for the origin of life

Creationism is the best theory. Meaning my adversary has the BOP to show that no other theory is better than creationism. I'll over my own case to start with then offer rebuttals in the later rounds. 1) Basics If you role back time to the point of singularity, it is entirely possible that the universe could cause itself to exist. Given the right constraints it is entirely possible the universe could arise from nothing. There are multiple theories that also support this such as the string theory, and multi verse theory. All are viable theories. 2) Evolution This is logical as there is mounds of evidence to support it. Hundreds and thousands of people have books dedicated to this and it is basically a fact. The only reason it is not a fact is because it is no observable. 3) God of the gaps What he basically does it make a God of the gaps argument. There is no answer for this, so God did it. The issue with this argument is that anything can be ascribed to that value and take the place of God. He is mistaking a lack of understanding and available knowledge, and inserting just a random argument that has no proof for it. His only stance is that, how can we exist if someone did not put us here. That is not an argument, it's an assertion that has not evidence to back it. His argument as the affirmative cannot be "give me a better argument", as I have already gave other alternatives. He has to show why creationism is the best alternative in comparison which he has failed to do. 4) His burden His burden is to show that creationism is the best alternative. I have provided theories that are just as if not more reasonable than creationism. If i show that a theory is *just as* plausible as creationism, I win this debate because he does not affirm his resolution that that creationism is *the best possible* explanation.
Creationism is the best theory for the origin of life

Creationism is the best theory for how life came to be. If you do not believe that a creator put life on our planet then you must believe that life formed under extremely unlikely circumstances. All theories other than creationism on the origin of life are so poorly supported and founded that I find it extremely difficult to believe in any one of them. I am not being arrogant about creationsim and saying that it must be the only answer, i am just saying that out of all the other theories it is by far the best. Now for what creator or God you wish to associate with the theory of creationsim that is for a different debate. I would like for someone to debate with me for a superior theory on the origin of life. And i assume if you believe that life came from natural processes then you also believe that life progressed through evolution. I also do not believe in evolution. I used to always believe in evolution, and almost treated it as a fact because that was how it was taught in school. But it wasn't until I actually looked at the theory and did research myself that I realized it had various holes in it and was in my opinion completely ridiculous. It is not supported whatsoever by the fossil record and the cambrian explosion directly contradicts evolution's slow process. There are so many holes in this theory! I urge anyone who believes in evolution like I did to actually look at it as a whole before coming to a conclusion. It is so misleading. I urge anyone to debate me on a better theory for the origin of life and show me why you believe evolution to be true. I look forward to hearing what you have to say, and I will listen with an open mind! Thank you!
Video games have had an overall positive impact on society.

All of my contentions have apparently been conceded. My opponent's sole case is that his one contention of a negative effect drowns out all of my positive effects. I disagree with some of my opponent's claims. "3. Declines in verbal memory performance" Video games often require the player to memorize things, which would lead to an increase in memorization skills. "4. Somatic complaints" http://en.wikipedia.org... Huh? "6. Detrimental school performance (as video game usage increases, GPA and SAT scores decrease)" Not if a kid starts playing educational video games at a young age. "9. Modifications in visual selective attention" Modifications do not imply negative effect. "'Video games are also harmful in other ways such as bad examples of how to treat woman as men are more likely to play videogames. There is cause to be concerned about the impact of violent video games. Parents need to be aware of the content of the games their kids are playing, and use the video game rating system wisely. Parents should also talk to their kids about the themes and storylines of these games, and stay on the alert for any behavioral red flags that may indicate a problem.'" This one solution solves the negative impact. There is a rating system that allows parents to control the games their kids play through parental controls. http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, violence caused by video games is a myth spread by the media. http://www.livescience.com... http://www.gamerevolution.com... Furthermore, if you look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org... All of the games listed are rated E, with the exception of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which is only #16. Violent video games do NOT dominate the industry in any way, shape, or form, until the media puts a spin on it. Furthermore, the pros far outweigh some teenagers becoming slightly more susceptible to dangerous activity: 1. Many kids benefit from educational video games far more than teenagers don't. 2. Video games have improved our technology for more accurate MRI and X-ray scans, and have improved the oil industry. 3. Video games are used for physical therapy and flight and war simulations. 4. Video games have improved dexterity, and allowed surgeons to save more LIVES. 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. Video games are entertaining.
Video games have had an overall positive impact on society.

As the nagative case to this debate my job is to prove the case of my opponet wrong. I have one contention that so far out ways all of my opponents, and I hope you will agree. Contention: In most cases where they are deciding whether something is good or bad for society is by proving that the good outways the bad, and in this case, even though video games may do all of those things mentioned, I still believe that the bad of videogames out weighs the good. Just as an example here are the top ten negative effects that videogames have on society which greatly outweigh the good. 1. An increase in emotional disorder symptoms 2. An increase in and behavioral disorder symptoms 3. Declines in verbal memory performance 4. Somatic complaints 5. Attention problems such as hyperactivity, ADD or ADHD 6. Detrimental school performance (as video game usage increases, GPA and SAT scores decrease) 7. Family interaction problems such as less positive parental relations 8. Significant reduced amounts of slow-wave (REM) sleep 9. Modifications in visual selective attention 10. Playing violent video games is a significant risk factor for later physically aggressive behavior My sources: Pediatrics 2008 Nov;122(5):e1067-72 European Psychiatry 2008 Apr;23(3):212-8 Journal of Psychiatry Research 2008 Mar;42(4):253-8 Pediatrics 2007 Nov;120(5):978-85 Cyberpsychology & Behavior 2007 Aug;10(4):552-9 Psychological Science 2007 Jan;18(1):88-94 Pediatrics 2006 Oct;118(4):e1061-70 Also according to research done by Susan Carney who has been working as a middle school counselor with 6th and 7th grade students for the past twelve years. She received a BA in Psychology from Temple University and completed her M.Ed. in School Counseling at West Chester University. Video games are also harmful in other ways such as bad examples of how to treat woman as men are more likely to play videogames. She says, "The themes in video games also normalize unhealthy social relationships and interactions. Male on male violence is presented as the way to determine pecking order: gang violence is glorified, and men solve conflicts through fighting to establish their place on the social chain. Since teens are very concerned about their social status, they are especially vulnerable to this type of modeling. Violence is also used to establish control over women, and sexual violence is common in some of the most popular games. Repeated exposure to and participation in these storylines for kids just learning how too navigate relationships can normalize this behavior for both boys and girls, and can impact their expectations of each other. There is cause to be concerned about the impact of violent video games. Parents need to be aware of the content of the games their kids are playing, and use the video game rating system wisely. Parents should also talk to their kids about the themes and storylines of these games, and stay on the alert for any behavioral red flags that may indicate a problem." Thank You
Video games have had an overall positive impact on society.

I affirm that the existence and introduction of video games to the world was overall a good thing. Video game - an electronic game played by means of images on a video screen and often emphasizing fast action (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Contention 1: Video games encourage learning and activity. All video games require you to exercise your mind. Some video games, such as Wii Fit, Wii Sports, and other Wii games require physical activity. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Many video games use math as a key component to its structure, and as such, the people who play them end up better at math than before. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Contention 2: Video games lead to new technology. Video game companies are always looking for new technologies to give themselves a competitive edge in the gaming industry. This technology is then replicated outside of video games. Graphic cards used for video games are used to give more accurate MRI scans, X-rays, and seismic graphs. Contention 3: Video games are used for practical purposes. Many people use video games for physical therapy. (http://www.uspharmd.com...) Computer simulations are used for war training in a less costly, less deadly manner. (http://www.wired.com...) Contention 4: Video games increase dexterity for those who play them. http://blog.peterkupfer.net... http://discovermagazine.com... Video games have been proven to help surgeons be more accurate in their surgeries. http://www.upi.com... That means that less people have died of surgical errors because of video games. Try telling the people who would otherwise be dead that video games have had a bad impact on society. Contention 5: Video games create jobs. http://www.nintendo.com... Contention 6: Video games provide entertainment. http://www.gamefaqs.com... Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.