BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Luke Skywalker is an evil character who practices witchcraft.

Opening comments: Please note that each of my opponent's sources are incredibly biased, with a clear pro-Christian bias.Analysis of BoP: Pro holds the BoP here, as they must prove that 1. Morality should be weighed with respect to Christianity. Unfulfilled.2. Disbelief/Nonbelief in God makes an individual or way of lie "evil" Proven thus far, but will be negated in this round3. Star Wars promotes witchcraft. Also proven thus far but will be disproven in this round.Concessions by Pro: The Jedi Code is a strong moral code.1. The Jedi Code is a strong moral code There is no emotion, there is peace. There is no ignorance, there is knowledge. There is no passion, there is serenity. (There is no chaos, there is harmony.) There is no death, there is the Force. —The Jedi Code (Based on the meditations of Odan-Urr) [1] The Jedi promote principals in line with those of Christianity: principals of peace, enlightenment, harmony, and fraternity. The only major difference is belief in the Force as a higher power rather than the Christian God. 2. Dis/non-belief in God does not equate to evil One does not have to believe in God to be a good person or to go to heaven. Pope Francis stated that even atheists can get into heaven if they are moral individuals. [2] If we are taking the Bible literally in this debate, which it appears we are, Papal infallibility would come into play [3], and Francis' newer doctrine would reverse the Bible verse my opponent quoted in R2. Matthew 16:18-19 refers to the original Pope, Peter, being told by Christ himself that whatever the Pope teaches on Earth will be consistent with the ideas in heaven. Therefore Francis' admission that nonbelievers and even disbelievers can be moral people debunks the entire Pro argument. Rebuttals R1. Skywalker talking to dead This is essentially the same idea as praying to a saint. You're literally talking to a dead person. R2. Use of the Force Remember that the Star Wars universe is "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away." Earth is never mentioned, so they would have had no exposure to Christian teachings, even if "a long time ago" was less than the 2000ish years since Christ's passing. The Force is a real entity in the galaxy in which they reside, and therefore they are believing the only thing they have had exposure to. I'm sure anyone would. [1] http://starwars.wikia.com... [2] http://www.catholic.org... [3] http://www.catholic.com...
Luke Skywalker is an evil character who practices witchcraft.

Rebuttals"Disbelief or non-belief in the Christian God does not mean someone/something is evil." warren42I beg to differ, disbelief in the Christian God is more or less the definition of evil. "Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son." [0]"The Jedi Code is a strong moral code." warren42A strong moral code that does not include God's ways. Labeling what is immoral to God as moral and visa versa, labeling what is moral to God as immoral, the Jedi are being immoral. As I see it we must put God first, and therefore view all actions through the lens of the Bible. This includes fantasy like Star Wars.Specifically the Jedi label the immoral act of witchcraft as moral. Which I will continue in the next section.Expanding on first round argumentStar Wars is all occult as seen in this link. [1] "Deuteronomy 18:10-12King James Version (KJV)10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee." [2] Clearly, by speaking to the dead Luke Skywalker is committing a form of witchcraft. I mean seriously, the Jedi are more or less the witches and warlocks in the Harry Potter series. There is very little difference. Instead of wands and brooms there is light-sabers and the force. Thanks for debating. Sources0. http://biblehub.com...1. http://www.vigilantchristian.org...2. https://www.biblegateway.com...
Astrology IS a science

Fair enough. As I'm affirming the resolution, I'll have the BOP.First off, since my opponent did not define any terms, I shall do so.Science, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, is something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge [1]So, according to the definition, as long as we can study or learn from that thing, it ought to be considered a science.Astrology, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, is the divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects [2]This is something that we can learn from and study. So, by definition, astrology is a science. Time for con to respond. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
California Proposition 65 Should Be Repealed

Proposition 65 was a ballot initiative in the 80s that forced all resteraunts selling foods with certain chemicals in them to post a sign along the lines of: "WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. ". http://en.wikipedia.org...(1986)The Proposition passed with a 63% vote in favor. In this round I will contend that the law should be repealed. No semantics, please. Thanks!
can be

A TETRIS game the size of the Empire State is impossible- See, if something like that were to happen, then it wouldn't really be Classic Tetris, would it? I think that what you're trying to say is that it's possible for this to happen, but you're not making yourself very clear. You don't use Grammar properly, and it makes it difficult to understand what you're saying (Especially since you say it as if you explained it all to us already.) So please, don't type like this "can be.a tetris game the size of my house.they line up good.", because that's extremely difficult and almost impossible to understand.
I exist, but it is possible my opponent does not exist.

The Fool: pro makes a last desperate attempt to strawman my arguement. Pro: The Fool asserts "that real existence must be assumed." The Fool: I argue that everything is real. A dream is still a real existing dream and an illusion is still a Real existing illusion. I refuted the brain in the vats argument. Either way may opponent would be just acceptible. Me and my opponent both know that we each exist via(Cogito) but you voters don't know 100% if we exist. However I am very active and engage more in discussion group on DDO. So it is more likly to you that THE FOOL then my opponent. Who has a Fresh profile and may be a Troll. Therefore either the resolution is nulled, or its been shown wrong. either way VOTE FOOL. plus you Love me more!!
I exist, but it is possible my opponent does not exist.

Rephrasing what my opponent has said, he asserts that real existence must be assumed. He believes that my Matrix theory is an appeal to ignorance. Turn. It's an appeal to the only knowledge I have, which is I EXIST. That's all that should be assumed and can be. CON attempts to refute my hypothesis by stating that we both could be automatons thus my resolution is nullified. I don't see this is the case. I might not know if I'm an automaton, but I know I EXIST. CON is left now with the burden of not only proving he exists, but that he is also an automaton. In conclusion, CON at no point of the debate proved that it's possible he does not exist.
I exist, but it is possible my opponent does not exist.

The Fool: The mind is consciousness, everything you ever experience is through consciousness the brain is just an object of conciousness. For what is IS and what is not, does not exist. There is only real existence.Refutation of the brain in the vat:The brain in a vat theory depends on an appeal to ignorance. It state that since we are ignorant of the possiblity that we are brains in a vat, we know there is a possibilty that we are brains in a vat. It is irrational to go from the non-existence of knowledge to the existence of knowledge of the possibility. It is also a contradition. I exist, but it is possible my opponent does not exist.For we both may be automations, which are debating each other as opponent. Resolution has been NULLIFIED
I exist, but it is possible my opponent does not exist.

My opponent doesn't seem to have enough time to post. Hence I win this debate by default. He has decided not to address the physical nature of the brain how it responds. Vote Pro. Here is a picture link of my example above: . http://www.debate.org...My opponent's evident lack of posting is also a point in my favor. As I can't be sure if he actually exists or not, it might have been an automated response by the debate. org web engine to my topic and when faced with the superior argument it has decided to forfeit. Again, thank you.
I exist, but it is possible my opponent does not exist.

You’ve decided to dissect the anatomy of the abstract concept of the mind. What makes the mind what it is? What is its source? And if this source is damaged, isn’t your mind damaged as well. If this source stops functioning, doesn’t your mind stop working? If all thoughts are is in our mind and our mind is our brain then the brain is the center of who we are. You did not address the brain at all. Since the brain is the center of everything we could very well be connected to the Matrix at this very moment and not know it. Our brain neurons could very well be connected to this vast Matrix and recieving electrical impulses identical to those which we normally recieve; reality would be simulated in my mind. How would I tell the difference?
I exist, but it is possible my opponent does not exist.

Imagination is “only part of the mind’Argument from Anatomy of mind; major components: Actual physical atmosphere: physical sense perceptions (Changes depend on using your body) Creative physical atmosphere: Where we could picture things in space, time, geometrical figures, physical memories, songs in our heads. (aka imagination/dream) Other aspects of mind/consciousness:Pure reasoning (logic, math, geometry), the raw formulas of the structure of ‘idea’ Emotions,(motivations and pleasure)Long term Memory (storage of ideas)Working memory: immediate thinking memory.(you current thought)Intuitions; instincts and reflexes (innate)Therefore since imagination is just the one aspect of mind everything cannot be a figment of imagination. QED!
I exist, but it is possible my opponent does not exist.

Welcome to this, my first debate. I will be arguing that everything in existence could very well be a figment of my imagination. You all could not be real and I would have no way of distinguishing reality from the illusion of reality. All our reality is comprised mostly of the sum of our past experiences, which we refresh with the additional input of information we perceive in our minds. So maybe life is but a dream.
Euthanasia

Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer Writes "They tell us that suicide is the greatest act of cowardice... that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person. Burdens of Proof: The PRO needs to prove that as a general Rule Euthanasia is Morally Permissible. The CON needs to Prove that as a General Rule euthanasia is not Morally permissible. This is the Most Basic Burden, and puts PRO and CON on a level playing field and is thus the Most Fair. 1. -If a Person wants to Die he should be able to die painlessly. John Stewart Mill writes "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" Euthanasia does not harm anyone but the person who has consented. So why is it immoral to die? If you are suffering why should it be considered Immoral for you to end that suffering. To Use a Commonly used Metaphor, Imagine your life is a dream, but it has turned into a nightmare, so the next step would be to end that nightmare. That Is Euthanasia. We may speculate that Euthanasia is Immoral because we shouldn't kill but none of us here have been in a situation in which they are suffering greatly and will inevitable die in the near future. Greek Philosopher Herodotus writes: "When life is so burdensome, death has become for man a sought-after refuge" We cannot morally deny someone the right to govern their own body. It is paramount to the unwritten Moral code that an Individual to have power over ones self. Otherwise we would be denying their rights to freedom, Liberty, Autonomy.... it is not immoral to want to eliminate suffering, so why would Euthanasia be Immoral? this Contradicts our own Moral rules. Philosopher Leonard Peikoff writes "In cases such as these, suicide is not necessarily a philosophic rejection of life or of reality. On the contrary, it may very well be their tragic reaffirmation. Self-destruction in such contexts may amount to the tortured cry: "Man's life means so much to me that I will not settle for anything less. I will not accept a living death as a substitute." Conclusion: we have a Moral duty to reduce Human Suffering so why would Euthanasia be immoral? It would not. Euthanasia is merely a Painless way to end ones suffering, and not to prolong the inevitable when life has become a living hell.
agnostic is the only true position on non sensical claims

If a claim is nonsensical then one cannot be agnostic towards it. To be agnostic is to state that with further knowledge the answer can be found but that until then one shall remain undecided (http://www.gotquestions.org...). If a claim is nonsensical, then no matter how much more knowledge one has for or against the claim, it can't be applied since the claim is nonsense.
The Five Primary Points of Calvinist Theology Are Biblical

Total Depravity:Total depravity is the idea that man, because of the fall, has completely lost its ability to will spiritual good. While we can still do some good deeds, our motives are evil. This is because we have an evil heart. (Mark 7:21-23) Our hearts are also sick. (Jer. 17:9). Men are slaves of sin. (Rom. 6:20) We do not seek God. (Rom. 3:10-12). We cannot understand spiritual things. (1 Cor. 2:14). We are in opposition to God. (Eph. 2:15). We are children of wrath. (Eph. 2:3). Because we cannot seek God, He must choose us to be saved.2. Unconditional Election:God chooses certain individuals to save, not because of what they would freely choose, but because of His grace. Grace is being given something we don't deserve. Do not confuse grace with mercy, which is not being given what we deserve. It is God's will that some of us are "born again," not our own. (John 1:12-13) God grants that we believe. (Phil. 1:29) Faith is the work of God in one of His elect. (John 6:28-29) God appoints people to believe. (Acts 13:48) God predestines certain people. (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23) 3. Limited Atonement:Jesus did not die for everyone, only those who are elect. While His death was sufficient to bring about the salvation of everyone, it will not effect everyone. Jesus died for many, not all. (Matt. 26:28) He died for His sheep, not the goats. (John 10:11, 15; Matt. 25:32-33) Jesus prayed for His people. (John 17:9) He paid the price for the Church, not all people. (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27) Jesus was prophesied to pay for the sins of many, not all. (Isaiah 53:12)4. Irresistible Grace:When God elects a person to salvation, that person will be saved according to His will. It is not up to people to choose or to act, but for God to show grace. (Romans 9:16) God works salvation in an individual. (Philippians 2:12-13) Faith is a work of God in a person. (John 6:28-29) God appoints people to believe. (Acts 13:48) Being born again is not man's will, but God's. (John 1:12-13) Once God chooses someone, they will come. (John 6:37)5. Perseverance of the Saints:Once someone is truly saved, they cannot lose their salvation. Jesus' sheep will never perish. (John 10:27-28) Salvation is everlasting life. (John 6:47) Those who are saved are passed out of judgement. (Romans 8:1) God will not allow us to b tempted beyond what we cannot handle. (1 Corinthians 10:13) God will be faithful to protect us until the day of Jesus' return. (Phil. 1:6) As you can see, these are some very basic arguments that require very little thought. The points I have made so far could be found on many different Calvinist websites, as an introduction to Calvinism. I look forward to my opponent's response, so we can get into some real debating.
The Five Primary Points of Calvinist Theology Are Biblical

In this debate, my opponent and I will argue the Biblical accuracy of the five points of Calvinism, which are: Total Depravity Unconditional Election Limited Atonement Irresistible Grace Perseverance of the Saints As Pro, it will be my job to prove that the five points are accurate. I am required to answer all of my opponents counter-arguments, which means they may not make new argument points in their last argument. That is reserved for simply attempting to disprove my points. To make up for this, my opponent may make one (1) initial argument in their acceptance speech, which I then must answer in my first true argument (round two). The debate will proceed as follows: Round 1: Pro - Rules Con - Acceptance + Initial (Positive) Argument Round 2: Pro - Counter to Initial Argument + Positive Arguments Con - Counter to Positive Arguments + Cross-Examination Round 3: Pro - Answer Cross-Examination Con - Positive Arguments Round 4: Pro - Counter to Positive Arguments + Cross-Examination Con - Answer Cross-Examination Round 5: Pro - Final (Mixed) Arguments Con - Counter to Final Arguments + Closing Remarks Positive arguments should be used by debaters to build their case only, not to refute their opponent's arguments. Counter (Negative) arguments should be used only to refute the opponent's case, and not place new positive arguments. Cross-Examinations may be up to ten (10) questions long, and must be explicitly stated at the ends of the appropriate arguments. The opponent must explicitly answer these questions without posing any new arguments or questions. Questions may involve any topic, no matter how seemingly irrelevant they are. Because we are debating whether or not something is Biblical, the Bible is the only valid source to be cited. The translation(s) that are deemed acceptable will be discussed before the debate begins. My opponent needs to know what each point means before they enter the debate. There is o singular correct definition available, and so the points are to be used as a guideline. The "definitions" are up for debate, and should be compared to Biblical context, with discussion remaining within the general idea of each point. An time a term is presented in an argument (grace, repentance, etc.) it must be defined by the person presenting the argument. Like with the definition of the points, these definitions are up for debate against Biblical context. If you would like any clarification, please let me know BEFORE you accept the debate. Accepting the debate means you agree to comply to all listed rules. I look forward to seeing who my opponent will be, and how this debate will go.
is God real

Burden of proof on Pro to demonstrate that God is real. I am curious as to which God pro is referring. Until I know which God pro is defending I cannot really provide an argument against their reality. “The complexity of this world cannot be explained by anything else.” It seems to me that Pro is saying that the world is too complex to have come about naturally. Therefore, God must have created it. As a syllogism this argument looks as follows: P1. Complexity implies a designer P2. The world is complex C. The world has a designer Pro has not really provided a defense of either premise, he simply asserts them. Thus the premises are bare assertions. What is meant by “complex?” Further the jump is made from designer to “God.” There has been no argument given that a designer would mean a God. The argument given by pro has a bigger problem than simply being a bare assertion and jumping from designer to “God.” The argument itself is, self-defeating. If everything complex s is the result of a designer, why would God an exception? P1: Complexity implies a designer P2: God is complex C: God has a designer I applied the same reasoning that pro does. Surely pro would not claim that the God they believe in was created by some other designer. (Perhaps he will) Even if you accepted pro’s “argument,” it does not make a case for a particular God, or in fact a singular God. The same argument could justify polytheism as theism. In addition, the arguments do not make the case of a sentient God. Thus the argument does not support the kind of personal God people profess to believe in or pray to.
is God real

Let me articulate the reason God allows evil in this world. The reason there is suffering in this world is because we are sinners. The truth is, we do not always think we need God. Even Christians believe a lot of the time that we don't need God. When we are in times of comfort, the tendency is for us to think that we don't need God, and we are good by ourselves. Evil exists in order to show us that we are not perfect. Evil is there to get our attention. Another reason that God allows evil in this world is because it will show how powerful God is when he pours out his wrath one day on all of the evil in this world. Now let me provide evidence for why God is real. First off, in the sites I mentioned in my previous argument, they state that there has been archaeological evidence that shows that Jesus is real. For example, they found James's bones. James is Jesus's brother. Scientists have also found remains of the tomb where Jesus was buried. Other evidence that supports Jesus is real are manuscripts. If you can show that Jesus is real, then you can show God is real. The reason is because Jesus points all of the miracles he does to God. Jesus performs many miracles such as turning water to wine, healing dead people, healing deadly diseases within seconds, and being crucified and then resurrecting 3 days later. All of these miracles Jesus says come from God. Other evidence that supports God is real is the Bible. The Bible makes 100's of prophesies way ahead of time that all come to pass. Here are a few examples. The Bible says that Babylon will rule over Judah for 70 years. This prophesy comes to pass in about 600 B.C. Another is that the Bible prophesied that Ninevah would be destroyed by fire. Not only was Ninevah destroyed, but it was destroyed by fire. Another is that the Bible says that Jesus will be crucified and resurrect 3 days later. Sure enough, the Romans crucified Jesus, and 3 days later, he rose from the grave. A Prophesy that the Bible say s will be fulfilled is that God will return and destroy all evil one day. The Bible has been right hundreds of times, why would this time be different. If the Bible has been shown time and time again to be historically accurate, how can you discredit it as proof for God. My opponents contention is that the universe could have always existed. I am not saying that this is not POSSIBLE, but there is absolutely no evidence that supports this. His other contention was that 99.99% of the universe is uninhabited. Even if this were true, how does it support your argument? In summary God is real. There is evidence that supports God, and all of the prophesies the Bible has made have come to pass.