BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gods non existence more likely true than false

The DebateI will seek to provide argument to support the proposition that it is more plausible (more likely true than false) that God (as defined) does NOT exist. Con will at the minimum seek to negate Pros arguments. DefinitionsGod - An omniscient, omnipotent, all loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being. Unnecessary suffering - suffering which is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.
Gods non existence more likely true than false

Free will defenseSeeing Con did not reply in the last round I will just make a quick note on the free will defense. "Free will" is often used as a rational of a greater good as to why God would allow or not allow something.For example if it is pointed out some child is raped and tortured and has a limb cut off in the context of arguing against "God" it will be claimed that is because God has given free will and in that case the child rapist/torturer/limb hacker was allowed to do such things by God because had God stopped such a thing it would be a contradiction in this divine given free will.So consider the assumptions you have to accept in order to make this work.......1) God makes a decision to value the free will of the child rapist to rape the child over the well being of the child.Well that an interesting choice isn't it ? Also notice that the child has a will too, the will not to be raped so............2) God allows the will of the child rapist to rape the child over the will of the child not to be raped.Logically possible sure ? plausible ?...................nah.Notice the assumption used in the free will defense and the inconsistency of such people who advocate the greater good of God given free will.No one complains about the child rapists God given free will to rape children being restricted. Imagine a rapist who is caught just about to rape and torture a child upon being apprehend and claims, you should not stop me. You see we have this thing of God given free will, this free will to rape the child is of a greater good than the childs well being cause if it wasn't God would not let me rape the child in the first place now would he ? No one would think we should let him rape the child even if he invokes God given free will, no one thinks that the God given free will to rape children supersedes the well being of the child. It makes more sense to prevent the rape of a child if you operate on the assumption that the child's well being is a greater good than the (allegedly God given) free will to rape children. Arguments for Gods non existenceI remind the reader about the plausibility of Gods non existence using occams razor and the moral paralysis argument.
Controlling the Media is Necessary to Win and Prevent Wars (5 rounds)

my opponent had fine arguments. however the arguments posted to contradict mine do not contradict mine. i have made my arguments why i am in favor of the topic and the response is that controlling the media is immoral and wrong. but why, i have argued with examples that controlling the media is a necessary component to winning wars. i have given my examples how the Media was not controlled, when it was and when it was not. my opponent has only refuted my examples and presented none to support the con argument. once again i will admit defeat if my opponent can provide sufficient evidence to state that when the media was controlled wars were lost, when the Media was not controlled unnecessary wars were not started. the argument that controlling the media is immoral is hopeless. is not war immoral in itself? i agree that controlling the media is immoral. but i am arguing that it is a necessary part of winning wars. i suggest that my usage of Vietnam is too controversial and that it should be dropped for the sake of simplicity. i will be perfectly fine continuing on my other two examples. i do this because i have not lost that case but i fear it will distract from the true subject at hand.
Controlling the Media is Necessary to Win and Prevent Wars (5 rounds)

sounds great would it be appropriate to look at this from an american standpoint? definition of controlling-exerting influence to persuade to a opinion or action necessary-in this context of necessary wars it is a war where the pros outweigh the cons. war-right i see your point. i use(d) the term war to describe an armed conflict between two peoples, nations etc. why are all wars bad? no i did not say all wars are bad. reflecting on history we can see the outcomes of various conflicts that show that either it was a mistake to get involved or it was the right decision. WWII- at the time it seemed like a bad idea but we did fight, suffer and sacrifice and won. stopping hitler and japan was worth all the expenditures and losses. the media was tightly controlled and mail to and from the troops was censored. morale was high and the US won. to my understanding based on personal opinion and a study of history, any time that the general population is knowledgeable of the true horrors of war, it immediately turns against the conflict in question and the media has the power to reveal that information. when the media has full disclosure of the horrors of war the public wants peace even if peace is not the right decision. i agree that it is necessary to control/restrict the media in times of war. the media has the power to start and end wars and not all ways for the right reasons. the spanish American war. we spent a lot of money. lost a lot of troops, equipment, inflicted extraordinary casualties and gained a few spikes of islands in far off places that did not benefit us all because of ambitious newspapermen. here the power of the media was not controlled and a useless war was started. in vietnam reporters were appalled by the war as they would by any war and told the american public what they wanted to hear that is to stop fighting to make more money. so the US pulled out of vietnam prematurely that in retrospect was a mistake. i used the terms security and saving lives arbitrarily meaning no particular reason. generally national/international security involves saving lives. i will admit defeat if you can provide examples where the power of the media was used for the greater good and not for the gain of profit in times of war. there will always be outliers so we both need to look at general pasterns of the data. to summarize the media will always canter to what the public wants to hear and not always the truth resulting is lost wars and won wars that were not necessary. to win a war the public needs to be kept oblivious to the horrors that it is.
Controlling the Media is Necessary to Win and Prevent Wars (5 rounds)

Because JFK says so, I negate the resolution that states "resolved: controlling the media is necessary to win and prevent wars". Since my opponent requested that "[he] made this debate 5 rounds so don't make it too long please there should be plenty of time to be as specific as [I] want later", and I'm not too sure what he meant by that, I will use this as a cross examination to his case. I would like to implement the following for this round. PR1 - Intro/Case (I'm assuming he didn't put his entire case here.) CR1 - CX (Preview to case) PR2 - Respond/Further case explanation CR2 - Respond/Full case PR3 - CX/Respond/Case CR3 - Respond/Case PR4 - Respond/Case CR4 - Respond/Case PR5 - Respond/Case/Voters CR5 - Respond/Case Voters If my opponent does not agree to this structure that'll be fine. I am not putting my case in this first one however, just to be on the safe side. With that, I have a few questions to pose about the affirmative case. Just as a heads up, some of my questions may seem ridiculous, some of the answers may seem obvious, but I would just like to hear an answer from you :) Also, at the end of each of my question, there's an implied (now its explicit) "why?" involved. I just thought it'd hurt everybody's eyes seeing the same word/idea so many times. __________________ What is your definition of "Controlling"? What is your definition of "Necessary"? What is your definition of "War"? Why are all wars bad? Do you agree that you have the following burdens: 1) it is necessary to control the media in times of war? 2) it is necessary to control the media to prevent wars? 3) controlling the media wins and prevents wars? Can you elaborate on your examples please? Is your highest "value" 'security' or is it 'saving lives'? I can't tell just from reading your case; it sounds like it can go both ways. If you don't have one, just say that. Why is saving lives / security the most important criteria? If not controlling the media gets more of the same types of benefits, do I win? If I prove there's a war where we do not stifle the press and win, do I win? What else do I have to show to win?
Controlling the Media is Necessary to Win and Prevent Wars (5 rounds)

don't get me wrong, i believe in the bill of rights and freedom of the press with reasonable limitations. the connotation of the bill of rights is that one can do whatever you want as long as it does not restrict the liberty of others. when the media goes bezerk for or against any war the pubic opinion follows even if it compromises national security. also the media is first and foremost a profit oriented industry and will canter to the wants of the general population. examples william randough herst faked and falsified news reports and illustrations to get the united states to got to war with spain. when the battleship maine blew up he immediately blamed the spanish. war makes news and people buy news. people also support wars when the papers tell them to. the US won the unnecessary war with spain. in WWII there were tight restrictions placed on the media. reporters couldn't publish photographs or reports that the government felt would hurt the war effort, and because of the tremendous support at home the allies won. in vietnam because it was not a formal war the media had a heyday publishing stories that would only feed the fire of peace activism started by guilt ridden draft dodgers. so the media made more money and the US pulled out of vietnam. the Vietcong new this and did several suicide raids on important sites and buildings knowing that the american papers would make it sound way out of proportion to pander to the peace loving homeland. and it did. our military was far superior but everyone thinks we stunk because the media portrayed it that way. so when the US left because of pressure form home, millions of south vietnamese were put in concentration camps and killed by the communists. these are a few examples when the media in want of profit caused unnecessary wars to start and necessary wars to end. (we can all agree that leaving vietnam was a mistake that cost the lives of millions of civilians) i made this debate 5 rounds so don't make it too long please there should be plenty of time to be as specific as you want later. to conclude a restriction of the media is necessary to protect lives in time of war.
Song OFF

How this will work. Each person will pick a song they like for that specific genre. The voters will determine who has the best songs. This is how the judging will work. Award each person a point for each round they win. If a person wins 3 rounds, award that person the win. If the rounds are tied 2/2 , you determine it on a on balance basis. Meaning who had the best songs all around. Round 1. Acceptance Round 2. Classic Rock Round 3. Modern RMB Round 4. Jazz Round 5. Modern Music in general
What is your stance on Cannabulism

alright then- no more "old bean." anyway...as mr. lechter says... how can you say than cannibalism is immoral? i say that eating one's own species is a part of human nature! humans are the choicest delicacy around! of course, that's not to say i don't eat other things as well. i have a well-balanced diet. to stay healthy i eat fava beans and wine. did i mention that feet are divine? they taste a bit like chicken wings, in my opinion. the only bad part about them are those pesky toenails. they're a real choking hazard once you get down to the toes. for a casual dinner, i normally heat the old oven up to about 450 degrees. oftentimes i'll make a little "party tray". you know, the smaller parts. fingers, toes, nose, tongue, eyes. they really whet my guests' appetite. my guests, by the way, are fellow cannibals. since we share that interest, i make sure never to kill them, no matter how tempting they look. they're such fine pals, they promise never to eat me either. we're a tight-knit bunch. i say that cannibalism is a fine practice, perfectly moral, and it fills one's stomach well. what do you have to say? psst....start criticizing what i'm saying! we're down to the last round!
What is your stance on Cannabulism

your logic astounds me, old bean, but i don't see how cannibalism relates to donald trump. that said....going back to old hannibal.... humans are finger lickin' good! they are the best meat you can buy. i keep a well-stocked meat locker out back. it's filled with scrumptious body parts. i take one out every night for supper. want to know how i kill them? it's very simple, really. i've devised a neat and painless method. first, i invite them over to my place, then i inject them with this lethal serum i cooked up. all they feel is a little ting in their arm as the poison takes over. next i slice them up with a standard kitchen knife. after that, i remove the intestines, stomach, esophagus, and heart. i also remove the liver, simply because i don't like liver. then i put the body in a freezer for safekeeping. oftentimes i nibble on a finger or two for a little snack. arms can easily be cooked in the ol' microwave for about fifteen minutes. i assure you, my good man, human flesh is the greatest meat on earth. anyone who says otherwise is talking rot! psst.... start debating! only a few more rounds left!
What is your stance on Cannabulism

i'm sure you will. you see, i'm doing this as an act of charity, since nobody supports cannibalism. anyway, resuming my hannibal lechter personality... alfred packer was a saint, i say, A SAINT! he was a rebel who dared to challenge ethics and morality. he was a god among men. everybody on this planet should love and adore him for the cannibal he is. have you ever tasted human eyeballs? they are the choicest delicacy. i'm not a huge fan of the brain, although i have tried it on occasion. the limbs are to die for. the rump isn't all that good. it's a bit chewy and surely not the thing for a cannibal on a diet. usually i put some coal on the grill and have a backyard barbecue. it's fun to get together with friends and neighbors who love this meat as much as i do. psst...are you convinced that i'm sick in the head by my outright lies? i sure am!
The Electoral College should be Abolished

Since my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I would like to restate a crucial point. This system requires the candidates to speak to a broader audience. This is because even if you won all the big states, (CA, TX, NY), you still wouldn't win. Now, would you rather have a president that speaks to three states or all 50,(51 if you count the District of Columbia)? the logical answer is 50, for if they could only speak to three states that proves a few things: 1: He is not self-confident. If the candidate was, then speaking to all would not be a problem. 2:The candidate is greedy. All the candidate wants is power and control and maybe the White House. That is a horrible quality in a president. My opponent has obviously lost this debate for many reasons. I urge a positive ballot on today's debate.
The Electoral College should be Abolished

As a little way to direct you, I will defend my points first, attack his, then state a few more. My opponent's point #2 is strong but weak at the same time. The EC is an elected group of people, from the people. So technically, they are voting indirectly. Even if this wasn't the case, they are WISE. Like I said in my point #2 earlier, they stop president riots and persuasive speech. If they majority of the people's votes were to decide the president, their is a high chance of a horrible president. As for my opponents argument against my third point, we are not a democracy nor do we want to be. We are a republic and proud of it. Also I did NOT say that our republic was RECENTLY formed, I said it was DECENTLY formed. Also, you said that America can defend against "barbarian invasions." how do YOU explain 9/11? By taking away our EC, it would be required to oversee the constitution. Our forefathers had NEVER intended for us to infringe on our beloved roots of America. Our constitution is America in whole and what we are. That wouldn't be true without the EC. Now I shall attack his points.... For his contention 1 and conclusion, I will restate that America is NOT a democracy nor do we want to be. Besides, the will of the people is not always good. With what you are proposing, there is a high chance of a horrible president. So, why in the world would you want that? It doesn't even make logical sense. A living constitution is an illogical, selfish way to infringe on our constitution. There is nothing else to say. Now for more of my points. This system requires the candidates to speak to a broader audience. This is because even if you won all the big states, (CA, TX, NY), you still wouldn't win. Now, would you rather have a president that speaks to three states or all 50,(51 if you count the District of Columbia)? the logical answer is 50, for if they could only speak to three states that proves a few things: 1: He is not self-confident. If the candidate was, then speaking to all would not be a problem. 2:The candidate is greedy. All the candidate wants is power and control and maybe the White House. That is a horrible quality in a president. Conclusion: We, as Americans, SHOULD want the EC because is is the best possible way to elect a leader and it's whats best for America. I urge a ballot today for CON.
The Electoral College should be Abolished

For the purpose of this debate, I am going to abbreviate "Electoral College" as EC. The Electoral College does many more right than wrong. Point #1 The EC narrows down and speeds up the process of electing a president. Honestly, how much time would it really take to count every single individual vote? About 9-10 YEARS! !! A president isn't even allowed to stay president that long. A president can only stay president 1 term, and only if re-elected can serve another term. Then he must step down for 1 term then he may stay in office another four years and then he is done. Let's say a president IS re-elected. that leaves two years of what? It couldn't be good. Plus, what happens if a recount is demanded? The government would completely out-of-whack. Source of presidency- Paul Jackson of JustAnswer. com Point #2 The EC chooses the better candidate for president. For example, let's say candidate John Dough runs for president and in his speeches he says he will do all these amazing things that some presidents actually promise in real life, such as Obama. He promised our taxes will reduce. He promised our pricey gas issues will be resolved. But look what happened. GOOSE EGG. NOTHING. 0. But, the EC prevents this from happening. Now, I am NOT saying that the EC is perfect. Point #3 The EC keeps our sacred Republic in America. We are not a democracy. As a republic we elect a smaller group of people to help us vote the right choice. Taking away the EC is taking our decently formed Republic and tearing it apart. We took the Idea of the Republic from Rome. In Rome, it collapsed and ruined the empire for a long time. Is that what we are destined for? Well, without an EC, it is. I would like to conclude with restating my points. With an EC, we have a very efficient way of voting, the majority of the time guarentees good president that will do for the better of America and keeps our amazing republic.
You shouldn't be allowed to claim that you are 119 years old on debate.org

Your lack of contact with older people does not give you a fair idea of how older people opperate. Have you ever heard of a 90 year old that has gone sky diving? What do you think you will be able to do when you are 119 years old? Do you think your mind will be full of mush and less able to do things? I am allowed to claim whatever age I am allowed to claim. What if I told you I was 13 and then composed an argument that seemed impossible for a 13 year old? Your basis for argument is your lack of real world knowledge as you readily admit. you know im right so just bow down and submit Let us Elders handle this stuff young lad ... now trott along and play your nintendo or atari or whatever ... let us more experianced people discuss adult business.
You shouldn't be allowed to claim that you are 119 years old on debate.org

I have never met anyone who is 119 years old. The older people get the less technology they use. Such as my grand-father who is just learning how to use a dvd player, and my great-grandmother who can't opperate a vcr. To my knowlage nobady over the age of 75 owns a computer, and then barely uses it. Thus no one should be allowed to claim they are 119, or anything older than 80. I researve the ability to make my case in later rounds.
God cannot possibly be omnipotent and omniscient at once

I never said that God can't do what he wants. All I said was that the future is dependent on God and not the other way around. You are thinking of it like this, God is set for outcome B but He want's outcome A, But he can't get it because B is set in stone. I reality, B is set in stone because God has made a decision that will get B. At some point He may want A, And take action to receive it, But he will eventually determine B--not because the future requires it, But because God will choose it.
God cannot possibly be omnipotent and omniscient at once

You have made this very simple for me in stating that "God can 'change his mind, ' if you will, But that doesn't mean that will alter what WILL happen. "If it is possible for God to want something to happen or not happen or change yet he is unable to make it so, by definition he is not omnipotent. That should be case closed as Con defeated their own argument in an unambiguous, Objecjtive way.
God cannot possibly be omnipotent and omniscient at once

I get what where you are coming from but if we are framing time as linear, Then what occurs in the past directly effects the future. Sure, God can change an outcome of something but then that outcome is just the established future anyway(of which God is aware of). Similar to how a mathematical function changes due to the variables yet still retains it's over all shape. God can "Change His mind, " if you will, But that doesn't mean that will alter what WILL happen. But is it for God?
God cannot possibly be omnipotent and omniscient at once

If you predicted I would get $1MM dollars, You could omnipotently place it there. But, If you are omnipotent, You should be able to change your mind at the last minute. This would mean your omniscient forecast did not come true. You may say, Now, That God would have predicted that change of heart so his forecast did come true. But, No matter how many changes God predicts, He should be able to change is mind one last time, If he were omnipotent. Also, Quantum mechanics make omniscence impossible.
God cannot possibly be omnipotent and omniscient at once

Wouldn't God's prediction be in alignment with the future He has forecasted though? . If I told you that you are going to get a million bucks tomorrow on your door step and then in the middle of the night I come to your house and place a suitcase with a million dollars by it, I not only have successfully predicted the future but I have been a major player creating that future. Since God can do what he desires, Why would he ever need to change the future? It would already be what he wants