BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Being Omnipotent Is Not A Logical Contradiction

Well, the Pro side has changed his position as from his original title "God Being Omnipotent Is Not A Logical Contradiction" to "God Being Omnipotent Is Not Impossible". This is not allowed and is against debate guidelines. This is not the grounds for which I accepted the debate and will therefore continue to argue my position under the original context I accepted, "Not a Logical Contradiction". With that being said, let me state this in clearer terms. The Pro side is stating that God created a logical universe, but that he is illogical (does not follow the logical world). As anyone can see, this is a logical contradiction as nothing illogical can exist or occur in the universe. If illogical things did exist/occur; physics, mathematics and chemistry which all hold that illogical things cannot exist would crumble absolutely. The pro side also states an example of someone using logical methods to produce a logical machine which obviously makes sense. If an illogical person tried to produce a computer it would be impossible for it to be logical because the computer would have nothing to base anything on (no facts). Essentially, if God were to be illogical as pro states (does not have to follow logic) then the modern scientific world would crumble and all scientific laws and constants would mean nothing.
God Being Omnipotent Is Not A Logical Contradiction

"but you also do not define whether God must follow rules of logic or not and a God cannot be independent of either" I did answer that: I said that God does not have to follow the rules or logic because he exist outside of it. "Essentially, this is an infinite loop of logical contradictions and you cannot defend God is either with what you define. This is because you cannot prove that there are illogical things which create logical things, this does not follow logic." I'm basically saying that the cause the rules of logic must exist outside of the rules of logic. For example (Please don't mistake this as a Watch-Maker argument), someone who builds a computer (I.e., the Universe) is not under the rules of the computer (I.e., the Universe). The one who built it can do things that the computer program (I.e., the rules of logic) wouldn't possibly allow. On thing to note, by the way: I worded "God Being Omnipotent Is Not A Logical Contradiction" incorrectly. It causes confusion as to what I was trying to say. It should say, "God Being Omnipotent Is Not Impossible" (I'm only rewording the title, I'm not changing the points I made)
belief in free will has emotional benefits to the believer and results in more actual freedom

So we have statements by PRO that people will become ..something bad if they know there is no free will and bad things will happen to everyone. Yet what the PRO has said does nothing to address what society already is when most people think they have free will and the suicides, mass depression and violence to others by people based on a theory of having personal freedom that cannot be ideally used. These suicides and victims of depression and criminals universally believe in free will. They are deceived they must do what they do because the very emotional opportunities PRO points out as supposedly real don't work and never did after repeated attempts. Pro's "I'm just straight up going to ignore what Con said" is just admitting PRO has no answer for any of the points made of what it is like to think you have free will. I suppose PRO wants us all to think that we all believe in determinism and that most people in society know they don't have free will but if everyone suddenly started saying "I'm in charge of my own destiny" we would live in paradise. Yet that is already the state of affairs and everyone is constantly looking "for a change" because the supposed benefits of supposedly having a free will never work out. Everyone knows that comedians and professionals who job it is to "cheer people up" 1. have a job because most people believe in free will that keeps not-working 2. are seen as fringe people by the rest of society as not being realistic PRO is proving they really do think they can get "out from under" a lack of realizing dreams by just tapping their heals together and saying "I've got free will. I've got free will." James 4:13-16 Go to now, ye who say, To-day or to-morrow will we go into such a city and spend a year there, and traffic and make gain, ye who do not know what will be on the morrow, ( for what is your life? It is even a vapour, appearing for a little while, and then disappearing,) instead of your saying, If the Lord should so will and we should live, we will also do this or that. But now ye glory in your vauntings: all such glorying is evil. In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
belief in free will has emotional benefits to the believer and results in more actual freedom

Yeah I'm going to straight up ignore the nonsense Con has posted and hit you with the hard facts. In a reality where there's no free will (and in believing this) every bit of effort you put into any passionate endeavour is never going to satisfy you as if you succeed, it wasn't your doing and if you fail it was inevitable and you will feel no urge to try harder to achieve your dreams. Furthermore, the issue with determinism as an outlook is that a society becomes psychopathic anarchy at its hilt since there's absolutely no way to have a justice system if the criminals all couldn't help but do their crimes. This is not at all healthy and is one of the most emotionally unhealthy political systems... The only thing worse than pure right-wing styled anarchy is pure tyranny of any kind.
seat belts in the back seat if over a certain age

Yes, it's because not wearing a seatbelt is against the law. You suggesting that teens over sixteen are allowed not to wear seat belts in the back of the truck. You have no evidence for that, and Secondly, anyone at any age should keep their seat belts on no matter if you like it or not. Your argument is so ridiculous that you have no evidence to prove your faulty claims. Anyone is prohibited from not wearing a seat belt. So, your next argument.
Laziness is a virtue.

For the contender to consider all effort, both physical and mental, as work is a convenience. He is then able to attribute to work all that is positive of mind and body and vilify any who desire to reduce or avoid it. Of the effort that it takes for the contender to think, I cannot say. But for most, mental activities require only slightly more energy than sleep and a fraction of the energy expended in physical labor. But, if it is arduous, then it shall be called work! So I shall concede mental effort, expressly to overcome obstacles and achieve an objective or result, as work. And it is precisely outside of the burdensome realm of work that inspiration is found. Archimedes was taking a bath. Newton was daydreaming under an apple tree. Descartes conceived of the scientific method while napping, as did Einstein and his Special Theory of Relativity. Our greatest strides have occurred during our laziest moments. Who can find fault with the work of Di Vinci, in his laziness? The people that weep at his failures do not recognize that, by refusing to be limited by the mundane work proposed by Florentine patrons, he contributed more with his doodles than countless who burn the midnight oil. To argue that increased work production furthers innovation or achieves anything of value is a superstition more often advocated by those concerned with the quantity of labor from others. The hard work that built our nation has been compelled by a survival need more than desire to achieve. Worse, this has often been slave labor, first with chains and then with a wage, people who have been fooled into believing that "the Lord loves a working man," but no sure, tangible reward. In fact, to establish value based on work demeans the individual. The lazy person sees the folly in being a cog in this machine. Laziness is not inaction; it seeks to avoid work, to do only the minimum required. Laziness is in a long term monogamous relationship with efficiency. The lazy person sees that goals are better achieved through the compounded small contributions of many people. For the individual to work harder there will be no appreciable effect. When masses cooperate, each to doing their small measure, great things are possible. Contrary to the contenders premise, laziness maximizes our ability to capitalize on opportunity. How many times have we had to pass on something because we had to work? Laziness affords more freedom and a less encumbered attitude. A lazy person"s plate is clear to act on an opportunity and is motivated to act only on what which is truly advantageous. Frequently the opportunities that present themselves while we work are chances to do more work and are no advantage to the individual at all. Laziness is both the compass and the engine moving us toward freedom in service of a higher purpose. Because of this quality, we are open to inspiration, value efficiency and cooperation and do not willingly give our minds and bodies over to others for purposes not our own. In that way, laziness stands on it's own merit as a virtue.
Laziness is a virtue.

I will attempt to avoid the argument that innovation is driven often by a desire to avoid or reduce labor. I will also hold back from the assertion that industry does more harm than good, and that its antithesis is proper. Although these paths are obvious, they are too long to walk down at this time. I am too lazy for that. In order to redeem the idea of laziness, I must first distance it from inaction. Laziness is unwillingness, not refusal, to work. Physical labor and effort will be the line drawn as to the aim of lazy avoidance, and the wheels that keep spinning in the head or the efforts of digestion will not offend my lazy virtue. Laziness reduces both the quantity of effort and the need for attention paid to those efforts, affording opportunity for reflection, meditation, socialization and an infinite variety of passive, yet enriching activities. Laziness offers time for appreciation. Even the hard-working laborer feels satisfaction AFTER the work is done - while they rest. In fact, most of the human experience beyond the calloused hands is diminished or unnoticed while we toil. What is obvious to the observer is not as evident to the nose pressed so diligently to the grindstone.
Laziness is a virtue.

Laziness or sloth is, in balance, a virtue and a positive trait in that it's advantages exceed its disadvantages. Since either side of the argument can be adequately argued - I will take either side. Whoever will accept this debate must choose their side in round 1. Then they will agree to: a- present their initial argument in round one and forfeit round 4, or b - they may choose to only declare their side in round one without argument and argue through round 4. Feel free to define parameters however you wish upon acceptance in round 1 although you cannot narrow the scope as rigidly as single belief systems or classes of behavior.
Technology is making humans more sociable.

The ease of communicating the message usually has little to no bearing on the accuracy of said message. Yes, technology can make it easier for us to communicate across greater distances and at a greater speeds, but where is the interpersonal communication? Would you rather be speaking to a relative or spouse across the nation over the phone or be right next to each other? To understand the point I'm trying to make you first have to look at what being social really is. Dictionary.com states that to be social one must seek and enjoy the company of others, so what do we perceive as company? Being miles apart or being right there next to the person? Technology is slowly disconnecting these interpersonal bonds and replacing them with bonds that contain little to no empathy or realism. That is where technology is not making us more sociable, quite the opposite actually.
Technology is making humans more sociable.

You make a valid point.However there are two things I have to say:1) Technology is not limited to the internet. tech·nol·o·gy tekG2;näləjē/ noun the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry. Even the wheel was technology, and it has allowed us to travel and therefore communicate with others.2) How technology is making humans more sociable: so·cia·ble G2; s!3;SHəb(ə)l/ adjective willing to talk and engage in activities with other people; friendly. I am almost sure that the ease of pushing a switch and getting the message across is quite more convienient than walking everywhere or writing letters, so that makes humans more willing to talk and engage in activities. You might say that humans can not perform all activities. However, according to the definition of activity, it is just the condition of something happening.
Technology is making humans more sociable.

I can see why you'll think that technology is bringing us closer together as a whole, but what about between individuals? Though I may be able to hear a voice or see a face on a screen, I cannot get the full range of emotions and thoughts of the other person. The human body use a vast array of body language and facial expression to help deliver an emotion that is to be perceived a certain way. There are about 43 facial muscles that help us communicate our thoughts and emotions in ways that technology cannot express. A text message cannot show a sarcastic tone accurately and a skype call cannot let us see the full range of the others body language. Even as it might seem that technology is bringing us together, it might actually be spreading us farther apart.
Technology is making humans more sociable.

Technology is making humans more sociable because even 100 years ago, one would have to write a letter to someone and it would take weeks to reach him or her.If we go even further back, to the ancient times, many civilizations were pre-literate and one would have to verbally communicate.As we progress, technology has made us more sociable.In today's day in age, if I want to communicate with someone across the planet, I can do so in seconds by the means of the Internet.Even the wheel is technology. It has helped humans travel and therefore become more sociable.
Affirmative action is wrong

If one is capable of acknowledging affirmative action assists all demographics, yet incapable of pointing out how affirmative action is harmful, they haven't exactly proven how affirmative action is wrong. I don't expect anyone to consider my opinions, rather I'd prefer they considered my arguments. My opponent acknowledges the numbers- white women have largely benefited from affirmative action. She makes a strange appeal to her authority as a white woman with regard to analyzing those numbers. I don't see the reason in giving her any consideration in analyzing those numbers simply because she is part of the demographic. I don't understand the difference between my observing white women have largely benefited from affirmative action vs. a white woman observing white women have benefited from affirmative action. My opponent makes a statement that appears to be elitist self-righteous indignation: "I still don't see why I have to help other people for something I didn't cause." She puts herself, erroneously, in an imaginary demographic that is not assisted by affirmative action, and makes an appeal to the emotion of that demographic. To be clear- if it wasn't for "affirmative action," which refers to policies intended to boost participation levels in different areas for specific under-represented demographics, has assisted white women with regard to their representation in many areas, and more so than most other demographics. My opponent does not dispute this, rather she implies she sees it a little different. Personally, I fail to see how perspective has anything to do with positive statistics for her demographic. If perspective were relevant it is my opponent's burden to prove, or at least make an attempt at convincing us of, that relevance. Though she claims that when she sees something that benefits her it's natural for her to like it more she also still claims affirmative action is "wrong." My opponent goes a little further than merely placing herself erroneously in a demographic that is not assisted by affirmative action- she also puts herself in an imaginary demographic of those who assist others by implementing affirmative action. I don't understand how she comes to this conclusion. How is she helping anybody for something she didn't cause? My opponent has a very misguided idea of how affirmative action works.
Affirmative action is wrong

I'm a white women so when I look at the numbers you presented I feel a little different. I think all people are equal but when I see some thing that benefits my self it's natural to like it more. My cousin got into a Ivy League school because he's half Chinese and I don't think that that was a wrong action and I'm not mad at anyone for it but I think it's in fair that I have to work harder in some cases than other people. I still don't see why I have to help other people for something I didn't cause. Your obviously gonna win thanks for the information. I hope people take into consideration my opinions. Thanks for debating with me.
Affirmative action is wrong

I'm a white girl (my mom is Tatar and looks Asian so technically I could say I'm multiple racial but I have green eyes and such so it's easier to tell people I'm white). I'm not racist but I think that affirmative action is wrong. I'm aware if what happened to blacks a long time ago but I don't glacier it so I'm not gonna pay for it. My great great great grandfather fought in the civil war to free slaves. So my ancestors helped black people they were Amish and mennonite pacifists ( accept for my great George great grandfather I just mentioned) and they were all farmers in PA and didn't own slaves. Even for people who's ancestors did own slaves they shouldn't have to suffer because it wasn't their fault and is out of their control. Punish the individual not the group or family. What if a descendent of a slave owner ls involved in activism for black rights. How is that fair. It's not our fault what happened and if it's not your fault you shouldn't suffer for it.
There is no stigma surrounding mental health issues in Australia

Secondly, There are many resources to help people with mental illness, An example of this is councilors. Counselors can help because they are professionally trained to help deal with the problems of having a mental illness. Celebrities can also help with mental illnesses because people can relate to them. An example of this is an actress called Lili Reinhart. She shows anti- stigma because she is open about her experiences with mental health which then impacts her fans who might be facing similar issues. A reporter stated that, "Lili wants to continue talking about depression and mental health issues because she knows it helps people feel less alone. "
There is no stigma surrounding mental health issues in Australia

"To the world you look like you're OK, You have a face full of makeup and a smile on your face, You don't look like you're sad, But inside you feel a bit dead. " The young girl who wrote this was clearly suffering however she covers up her problems everyday. Why? Because their is a stigma that can be hurtful and debilitating and that is why we shouldn't ignore the facts. Some people may ask for help however statistics have proven that more than 50 per cent of young Australians are too embarrassed to talk about mental health issues and 26 per cent of young people aged 12 " 25 wouldn"t tell anyone about a mental health issue. This information came from headspace a respected wellbeing organisation that is bluntly telling us to not disregard the facts and see that a stigma does exist when it comes to mental health in society today.
There is no stigma surrounding mental health issues in Australia

Firstly, No stigma helps people not to feel discriminated when asking professionals for help and getting the treatment and support they need. Meaning that Australia is a place where people feel free to talk about their problems, This is supported because Australia is a country trying to work on lowering mental illness statistics. Stigma also does not affect everyone with a mental illness in the same way it would for other people, Therefore it can vary from person to person meaning some groups of people will be more affected than others.
There is no stigma surrounding mental health issues in Australia

Finally, There is also a social stigma that stems from the media. My opponent said that there are organisation that are trying to help the fight the stigma we all know exists however evidence shows that the presentation of positive images does not appear to balance negative media portrayals and we don"t realise how much the media actually stigmatises those with mental health issues. The presentation of negative images of mental illness in both fiction and non-fiction media results in the development of more negative and inaccurate beliefs about mental illness. 40 percent of people report that the media as a source of their belief linking serious mental illness with violence and 1 in 6 people with a mental illness say newspaper portrayals of mental illness generally discourage them from seeking help. The media is incredibly powerful in educating and influencing the public and right now we can not overlook the fact that the media is a part of increasing this stigma.
There is no stigma surrounding mental health issues in Australia

Thirdly, Evidence suggests that Australia"s mental health resource, Beyondblue is an anti-stigma campaign. This is because beyondblue is an organisation working hard to address the issues associated with depression, Suicide, Anxiety disorders and other mental illnesses and disorders. Beyondblue offers many articles for people suffering from bipolar disorders, Mental health, Or even becoming a parent. They also offer sources to help with getting support, Finding healthy places, Getting involved or even making donations. As the opponents stated, Lili Reinhart only started speaking up about her mental illness a few years ago. She also stated that maybe she didn't speak up about it sooner because there was so much stigma in AMERICA. That might be the case for America, But not in Australia, And because we are talking about stigma in Australia, America doesn't count!