BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate. Org is still great and better that ever

It would be nice if you gave some base of what your stance is but I can say mine: Debate. Org has the worst debates and I lose brain cells looking at everyone's arguments. This shouldn't take too long. I don't see much of any debates that aren't completely useless. For instance, If I were to go on the debates right now, You would find the following: "GIve a six year old a lick on the cheek" "don't circumcise a baby boy. Lick him instead" "videos like bish lasagna should be taken down" "everything is wrong about children" "is it perfectly acceptable for four year old girls to date adult men and play with them" Lately a lot of the debates have been about pedophelia. Like, ALOT. Just look at it. If the debates aren't disgusting, They can be pretty boring too. "Does god exist? " How many times have people seen this debate? Too many times. "beliefs" "Which is a better iPhone company" Every once in a while you see some decent debates. But definitely not as much as you used to. Trolls have taken over.
Is an omniscient god compatible with free will

I apologize for not being able to post in the 3rd round. My internet was down for a few days. It is true that if I have a choice between outcome A and B and God knows that the outcome will be A, then outcome B will never have existed to him. However, this does not mean that we don't have free will. God can know the choices we will make without taking away our free will. I know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. This doesn't mean that I cause the sun to come up; I just know that it will. God's foreknowledge of our choices doesn't mean that we can't choose what we want; it means that God knows what we will choose ahead of time. I hope anyone reading this debate was able to draw their own conclusions on this topic. Thank you for your time and respect during this debate.
Is an omniscient god compatible with free will

For some reason my opponent has forfeited the previous round. For this reason I will extend my argument from the previous round as well as draw attention again to a central issue I would like my opponent to address. As stated before I asked the question about a point A which leads to one of two outcomes B and C. However, if God already knows that the outcome is going to B, then the outcome C never existed. This means C was never an option. If C was never an option in the choice then it holds that there was no choice. If there was no choice then free will is unable to exist with an omniscient God. I would like it if my opponent can address this argument above and to point out any flaws. In my opinion I believe this argument makes a very solid case against an omniscient God been compatible with free will. Over to my opponent and thank you for the debate.
Is an omniscient god compatible with free will

"If an omniscient, all-powerful God really wanted to pre-determine our choices, it would be logical to assume that He would turn us all into "robots" and make us treat him like a king." I am not sure how you can say that when I have presented my case using a point A, from which two outcomes are possible those been C and B. However, if God already knows that the outcome is going to B, then the outcome C never existed. This means C was never an option. If C was never an option in the choice then it holds that there was no choice. If there was no choice then free will is unable to exist with an omniscient God. I would like it if my opponent can address this argument above and to point out any flaws. In my opinion I believe this argument makes a very solid case against an omniscient God been compatible with free will. So while you say we are not robots, if we do not have free will we essentially are robots. Let me elaborate. The term robot is used very loosely in the argument, as a robot could be a machine doing one task or a cleverly designed computer program able of passing the Turing test (1). In terms of a robot able to pass the Turing test to us it seems free to decide like a human. However, this robot is not free to decide as it has been programmed. This is much what a person in a omniscient God world may look like. It seems we have free will but we don't, as it is predetermined. You mention that God would makes these robots treat him like a king, but this has to do with omnipotence and not omniscience. While this is true and a god could do that, the fact then arises why is God not making us do that if he/she is all powerful. Instead God gives us supposed choices and condemns us to an eternity in hell in the Biblical sense. My opponent said "Instead, we have a world full of evil and people who reject the existence of God completely." and "Why would God make people reject him and ruin the world he created? This very simply is illogical." I think it is necessary to first ask, what is evil? Some theists will reject the idea of sex before marriage and say it is a sin hence evil. However it is a natural urge and act, so why is it evil? Or another idea of evil/sin is homosexuality and a common argument used is that it is not natural. However if you look at nature you will see homosexuality in penguins, dolphins etc. (2) Additionally, while you say the world is evil and heading towards ruin, I could easily assert that the world is a better place now than 20 years back. I just have to look at advances in clean fuel and medicine to see this. An omniscient God is taking away choice and as such my opponent asserts that the God would essentially be forcing ruin on a world he created. Well that is exactly the problem with an omniscient God, if God knows the future then God already understands how he will ruin his created world. God already knows that not everyone will be saved from eternal torment, yet apparently God does not care as this has all been predetermined as God already knows what choices will be made. Over to my opponent (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.news-medical.net...
Is an omniscient god compatible with free will

While I do admit that I couldn't ever predict an action another person made with 100 percent certainty, I don't agree that an omniscient God would pre-determine what our choices are. If an omniscient, all-powerful God really wanted to pre-determine our choices, it would be logical to assume that He would turn us all into "robots" and make us treat him like a king. Instead, we have a world full of evil and people who reject the existence of God completely. Why would God make people reject him and ruin the world he created? This very simply is illogical. Back to my opponent.
Is an omniscient god compatible with free will

I agree with my opponent that " If God is an omniscient figure, this would clearly mean that he would know every action each and every one of us will make throughout our lives." However this is also where our interpretations part, as I have to disagree with my opponent completely on the second part of his argument " even if he knows what actions we will take, this does not necessarily imply that He forces us to do what we do". It seems rational to me that if God does know all the actions we will take then this necessarily means that he pre-determines what our choices are. To elaborate further, if God knows the outcome of a choice then it means that the outcome is pre determined and that there is no other outcome. This means that God who has this foreknowledge makes it impossible for us to have a choice. Essentially, a choice at point A can lead to either an outcome B or C. However,if God already knows that the outcome will be B (omniscient outcome) then the outcome C cannot exist. The analogy that my opponent has used is that he can predict what actions those friends close to him will make. However my opponent will surely admit that he can never predict with 100% certainty every time what his friends close to him will do. This uncertainty translates into the possibility (albeit slight) of another outcome. However, in this analogy when we consider God we see he can predict the outcome every time with 100% certainty and so the other outcome never exists. Even if we allow God to have hypothetical knowledge then we can say the two outcomes exist,however these two outcomes exist only in Gods mind as the one outcome will not take place. If this outcome does take place then God had hypothetical knowledge but not complete (omniscient) knowledge as the wrong choice was made. If we go back to the choice at point A which can lead to either outcome B (omniscient outcome) or C (hypothetical outcome). Then again C cannot be an outcome of choice as it is only hypothetical. So essentially, in any way we look at this it seems to me that Gods omniscience leads to pre-determined choices and the loss of free will. Over to my opponent.
Is an omniscient god compatible with free will

First, we must understand the term omniscient. This term refers to something that is all-knowing. Gods of many religions are defined as omniscient. Many of these religions also believe that we all have free will, and that God judges us based on the choices that we make during our life. If God is an omniscient figure, this would clearly mean that he would know every action each and every one of us will make throughout our lives. Now, even if he knows what actions we will take, this does not necessarily imply that He forces us to do what we do. I can reasonably predict the actions of those close to me, as I KNOW them well. Does this mean that they don't have free will? I await your rebuttal.
Is an omniscient god compatible with free will

My position is that an omniscient god is incompatible with the idea of free will. Extra Information. 1) This statement can hold for any god that is omniscient, so if my opponent wants to take the argument in the direction of a specific deity, I do not have a problem with that. 2) I do realize that there are philosophical arguments whether free will exists or not. However, I do not wish to debate this. My opening argument. Free will can be defined as the "the ability to act at one's own discretion." While omniscience can be defined as "Having total knowledge or knowing everything." In simple terms free will means we are able to make a choice. However if an omniscient god exists then free will is unable to exist as this omniscient god already has foreknowledge of the future. This foreknowledge leads to the obvious conclusion that free will cannot exist as any choice cannot be made without altering the future. However, if free will does exist then choices alter the future and the omniscient god no longer has foreknowledge. This means then that the god is no longer omniscient and as such an omniscient god is incompatible with free will.
Abortion Is Not Immoral

This was a mildly painful debate. C1. Abortion kills a fetus.Well actually expels or removed. Not really anything big I don't agree to there.C2. A fetus is a human.A fetus is not a human. It is a "devoloping mammal" according to Wikipedia.You, I, and the voters are most likely devoloping mammals. I'm only 15. I am still devoloping. It may develop into a human but it is not human. It may be alive but it is something developing into a human. It also contains human DNA but is not a human being because according to Wikipedia, fetuses don't have lungs, and are not actually formed as lookiing like a human.Nonsense. Lungs and looks dont make a human a human.C3: Abortion is a crime.Abortion is not a crime, my opponent didn't give a definition. Crime according to Wikipedia is the breaching or breaking of the law. Abortion is legal in the USA so it is not a crime.You said abortion kills a fetus. So if the voters pick that a fetus IS a human then abortion is a killimg and thus a crime.
Abortion Is Not Immoral

C1. Abortion kills a fetus.Well actually expels or removed. Not really anything big I don't agree to there.C2. A fetus is a human.A fetus is not a human. It is a "devoloping mammal" according to Wikipedia. It may develop into a human but it is not human. It may be alive but it is something developing into a human. It also contains human DNA but is not a human being because according to Wikipedia, fetuses don't have lungs, and are not actually formed as lookiing like a human.C3: Abortion is a crime.Abortion is not a crime, my opponent didn't give a definition. Crime according to Wikipedia is the breaching or breaking of the law. Abortion is legal in the USA so it is not a crime.
Abortion Is Not Immoral

Oops.First, I will allow my opponent to start because he has to argue this and I will refute it because I don't know what to say at the moment. However, we will be arguing around this big point below.#1 Abortion is not murder.Therefore my opponent will start. I agree with my opponent's definitions. I will also say that I must not only refut his points but prove why abortion is not immoral.What point are you extending?C1A fetus is a human.ThusAbortion is murder....send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not.Â Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception." To be clear a human is part of the Homo Sapiens. It meets all expectants of a life form. (which is on the site, cant miss it). So is we follow this logicP1 abortion kills a fetusP2 A fetus is a humanC1 Abortion is a crime.I put my P1 case to the table and P2 is simple.http://prolifephysicians.org......
Resolved: Salem Hills High School is better overall than rival Payson High School

Give it time, and the quality of Salem Hills will reach the quality of Payson" My opponent's choice of words reflects that he does not fully understand the resolution. "Resolved: Salem Hills High School is better overall than rival Payson High School" The resolution does not state 'in time'. it states about Salem Hills being better always. Salem Hills was built the summer of 2008. It has brand-new, top line computers. It has competent staff. It has a helpful, and kind student body. Salem Hills is the place to be. Payson was built before both World Wars, and before anyone on the planet was born. The equipment is from the dark ages, and the staff is unknowledgable, unkind, and rude. Cites: http://www.nebo.edu... http://www.nebo.edu...
Bring back the military draft

From a disciplinary angle I believe in the draft, it creates discipline, conformity and respect for others. It also provides structure and direction to young people. I'm not saying we need to have wars or prepare for war but from a structure in society I believe it. It would be more like 2 years of society structure, kind of like prep school after high school. Also people would be more prepared in case a war broke out, you would have all the training and would not run around like a chicken with it's head cut off
Bring back the military draft

I think we should bring back the military draft because it would solve a lot of these issue we are experiencing in society. If we made every 18 year old be put into basic training and Navy, Army, Marine Corp we would have highly disciplined young men and women who had a proper sense of responsibility and discipline. I'm not saying every one drafted be sent to war, but at least serve 2 years in training. This would eliminate a lot of gangs, because those young people would be standing in front of a drill sergeant instead of a street corner selling crack, they would be taught a sense of direction, team work, responsibility. People would get more of a sense of direction in their lives, and better understanding of problem solving and a lot of experience in life lessons. I think our society has gotten soft today, guys wearing hand cream, complaining that their Internet connection is down, there are bigger issues in life we face then that. I believe the military would give these people better direction in life and certainly better discipline and self responsibility. The military/marine Corp will train you how to make your bed tight so you can bounce a nickel off of it, they will keep you in top shape and fit, no obesity and laziness. You will learn discipline, not talking back to adults, you will show respect to your elders. The Marine Corp will break you down, remove those lazy habits and rebuild you as a efficient working machine, they will make you stronger, faster, healthier and more respectful. Huuuaaahhh!!! I am all for the mandatory draft. Semper Fi !!
United States should continue to use drone strikes abroad!

ima just respond just so I have something to vote off of. Intro: Drone strikes aren't bad in and of themselves. In a battlefield, all goes. However when you drop a bomb on say a wedding with 200+ people with women and children in it, just because one of your "sources" state a terrorist MAY be present there, is fundamentally immoral, illegal and just wrong. I don't want my future tax dollars stained with the blood of children. Now some will come up here and point out hey the drones don"t have people no harm done but that also is a bad thing because since no people are in the drones we will be more willingly to send them in to places with no regrets. Point 1: anti-American sentiment/countries against drones "A July 18 Pew poll of 39 nations found fierce global opposition to US drone strikes, particularly in the Muslim world. "Sometimes we create terrorist with our own anti-terrorism methods like an example is in Yemen for every terrorist killed 40 to 60 more were made due to anti-American sentiment Point 2: ineffectiveness of drone strikes "First, only 1.5% of all drone attacks hit their high profile targets as provided by Stanford Law School. This means that 3 of 200 drone strikes reach their targets. The other 197 of 200 either completely missed or hit the wrong person(s). The only nation that approves of the US's strikes are the US itself. "A drone fires where it is instructed to, however, things change between the time the order is given and the time it is carried out. Point 2: American drones result in arms race "Small, inexpensive and lethal, drones enable everyone from terrorists to the Chinese People's Liberation Army to engage in what the Pentagon acknowledges is a new arms race with "alarming" consequences. More than 50 countries operate surveillance drones and, increasingly, are fitting them with weapons. TheHuffingtonPost.com "Enemy drones could cause many problems like raiding battle ships and posing threats to the U.S. "The threat from a drone arms race not only stems from other countries, but it also stems from the ability for these countries to sell these drones to terrorists. In fact Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism, has already began selling drones to terrorist groups According to Jeremy Hsu "Iran has already sold its own crude drones to countries such as Syria and organizations such as Hezbollah, a militant group based in Lebanon and backed by Iran. In addition, China-made drones would allow countries like Iran and North Korea to obtain technology. Point 3: death/cost of drone strikes "More than 3,000 people have been killed by drone strikes in Pakistan provided by theblaze.com
gun ban

Your country's gun deaths per year are 55, not 2-9. Anyway while your gun deaths per capita are 0.9, ours are 3.6. That is 4 times a many per 100,000 people. But Denmark has 12 guns per 100 people, while the US has 112 guns per 100 people, that's 9.3 times as many guns per capita. Simply put, your country has a higher gun murder rate per gun owned. And I haven't even remotely mentioned war, with the most powerful armed forces in the world protecting my land, why would that be a topic that I would even bring up? And would you kindly tell the 50 that died at the pulse night club shooting that they have no reason to carry a gun. Also, not that people in Denmark care, but a week after the night club shooting, a concealed carrier stopped a man attempting to commit a mass shooting. "No intruder comes with a gun" Some will. But home intruders aren't the only threats. People die at the hands of guns, no gun law will change that, the only way to protect yourself is to arm yourself. I will not respond to anything else as you have done nothing but refute what I have said, and simply rebuild arguments I already proved wrong.
gun ban

it will work.. you can not control illegal guns when guns floating in the air and popping out of vending machines the problem is you have war in your mind.. you will go to the length of saying, but a war could come, and we wouldnt be armed.. yea thats right isnt it.. but you have a military, like we do here.. whats the difference besides, about 2-9 dead by gun shots per year where i am from.. denmark.. vs 13000 a year water is good, people should have water.. your brain is at war with your body.. you dont need a gun for this no intruder comes with a gun.. i am no mafia man, and i have not much money.. you are at war with ghosts you dont have arguments, only irrational war fear true black market can exist in usa because of its crowded with guns... obviusly you are wrong on all points.. i dont know who filled your head with all this babble.. you dont have any solid or true points.. just non sense its only possible where public does not have guns.. this is simply true.. look anywhere else in the world
gun ban

So you believe that by simply making a law that bans guns entirely from the public that the problem will go away? How do you propose that this law should work? In what way is it possible for the government to locate every gun? Do you seriously think that every single person will be willing to hand in all their guns? Despite what you believe, but can't explain, no law or method can completely get rid of guns. Again I say that the only people who would comply to a gun ban are law abiding citizens, thus making the problem worse. "Police are there to serve the public." If what you mean by this is that we don't need guns to protect ourselves because we have cops, then I could say that we don't need fire extinguishers because we have firemen. The flaw in both cases is the same. Cops aren't always around to keep us safe just as firemen aren't always around to stop fires in time. "I can use a stick to keep myself safe" I suppose that what you are saying is that we can use objects other than guns to keep ourselves safe. But what if an intruder enters your home with a gun? No stick or knife could really help you. Yes, mentally unstable would fall under the category "Dangerous" As would criminals and anyone who fails a gun safety test. "The safest way is for only police to have guns" Please refer to the first and second paragraph, as my argument here would be the same. "Guns only add to the body count" If someone truly wants to kill someone else, they don't need guns to do it, and more importantly they don't need to buy a gun at a store to do it either. Again, if one has been deemed unfit to own a gun but still wants a gun, there is nothing stopping them from going to the black market. "The only way the black market will prevail is for guns not to be banned" While I expected you to know basic economics, you clearly don't. So I will teach you a lesson. When the public and private sectors both fail to meet needs of any consumer for legal reasons, that is when the black market fills in. Lets take drugs for instance, since the government bans drugs from being sold, there is no way to control quantity or what is in the drugs to make them more safe. That is why we have drug epidemics. If we where to make the gun industry rely on the black market, it would get out of control in the same sense, with people going there instead of government mandated gun distributors, it is much easier for the law-breaking consumer to get their hands on even more dangerous assault weapons. And if you want a paradise where no one but police have guns, then go to prison, because that's the only place it will ever be possible. Thanks for reading.