BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a rational proof for the existence of God. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause, The Universe has a beginning therefore it must have cause. The universe couldn't come from nothing because that is impossible, and we never observe anything coming from nothing, so there is no evidence to support that position. There was a Big Bang as science has proven so there has to be a cause for that Big Bang. Steven Hawking argues there was no time for a cause to exist because Time started at the Big Bang. This makes no sense how can something come from nothing again? I argue that God may exist in a dimension beyond time (since time is just a dimension) so a cause can exist beyond time. The Cause must also be personal because it had the will to create the universe with fine tuning. People argue for the multiverse theory that something simple creates universes so there is no need for a personal cause, but this goes against Occam's Razor which tells us not to invoke entities beyond necessity. Furthermore there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of a multiverse. Also Science can not explain where life came from. It has yet to create even a single cell. All we have created from the Miller Urey Experiment are a few amino acids that are both left handed and right handed, but life requires only left handed amino acids and right handed amino acids are poisonous to life. Furthermore, amino acids can't be produced without RNA and DNA neither the can RNA or DNA be produced without amino acids, so life can't come from nonlife, also Fred Hoyle said that the chance of a single cell creating itself by chance is equivalent to a tornado blowing through a junk yard and creating an airplane, both are "impossible," so there must be an intelligent and personal designer who has a will to create life who created the universe. Atheism and Deism both collapse under my argument because the cause has to intervene in the universe to create life because there is no other logical explanation for our existence other than a personal God who created and intervenes in nature
Resolved- The costs of informing the public of the world ending 3 months prior outweigh the benefits

My opponent's last speech/argument/round/whatever has a few major flaws. The first is where he claims that he provided some benefits, therefore the costs the provided outweigh the benefits. The PROBLEM with this is that i clearly explained previously that he neither provided benefits in the beginning NOR reserved the right to provide benefits later in the debate. Thus, the benefits he brought up later in the round are 100% irrelevent to our debate. The second flaw is that he claims we don't need a weighing mechanism; he simply advocates counting up the benefits and comparing that number to the costs. The problem with this is that not all things carry equal weight; we wouldn't say that the benefit of not punishing any innocents cancels out the costs of getting rid of our penal system. What this means is that we NEED a weighing mechanism to determine if the costs really do outweigh the benefits. Since my opponent NEVER provides you with such a mechanism, we have NO WAY of knowing if the costs really do outweigh the benefits. To illustrate this, I provided the example of how we would be unable to determine whether or not Johnicle weighs more than me if we don't have a way to determine that. The same way, we have no way to determine if the costs outweigh the benefits if he doesn't provide us with a way in which we can determine this. This has a HUGE IMPACT on the round: if he can't tell us how we determine (or weigh) between two different things, he can't claim that one outweighs the other. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE to affirm (vote pro on) this resolution. This means that you vote CON. *TO SUMMARIZE* As I've stated in every posting I've made, Johnicle doesn't tell us how to weigh between the costs and benefits. If we can't way, he can't say that one outweighs the other. EVEN IF he wins that there are some costs, he doesn't win that they OUTWEIGH the benefits (which is what the resolution asks him to do) if he can' tell us HOW to WEIGH. This means that the resolution can not be proven true.
Resolved- The costs of informing the public of the world ending 3 months prior outweigh the benefits

The point of this resolution is to examine if the costs outweigh the benefits or not. My answer is simply yes, they do. All of my costs go uncontested... flow these through the round. My opponent has refused to give any benefits whatsoever, however, last round I offered one benefit in my last speech of, "people being able to do what they want in their last three months." There is also the benefit of being able to prepare for your death. These are two benefits, but are easily outweighed by all of the costs. She claims that I don't give a weighing mechanism, however the weighing mechanism is simply which is more. In order to "outweigh" you simply have to have a greater amount. I have 6 costs and 2 poor benefits, therefore, the costs outweigh the benefits. You have to see that there are some benefits whether she offers them or not, since she says I have to in order to weigh them, I did, and you CAN weigh these two things. I only used the human weight comparisons as examples. But now you can see that if the world were to end in 3 months, the costs of informing the public do in fact outweigh the benefits. I would go argument by argument but I don't see it as necessary, the round only comes down to what I have addressed, therefore, I can only see a Pro vote. Thank You!
Resolved- The costs of informing the public of the world ending 3 months prior outweigh the benefits

My opponent offers an interesting opening argument, but it does not disprove the resolution. She opens with a statement that is true but is applied wrong. She says that all she has to prove is that there is no truth in the statement. BUT, in order to prove that there is no truth in the statement, you must provide benefits. (speaking on a level of philosophy) in my last speech, I offered 20 pounds of costs. In her last speech, she provides no benefits. She assumes that since no benefits were provided then I can't prove that they truly are outweighed. But the voters (at least a good voter) will not come into this round with their own argument but simply the arguments presented. If I believed abortion to be wrong and made a resolution about it and the other debater never posted an argument, voters would have no choice but to vote for me, WHY? because the opponent never proved anything else. Does that mean that me winning makes that final, no... but the only thing that the voters ought to be concerned with is what is presented in this round. So, how do you prove that there is no truth in this statement, you simply MUST provide the benefits to outweigh (or equal for con) the costs. But as of now, the 20 pounds of costs outweigh the lack of benefits. Off her first point--> She ADMITS that there are no benefits, and she continues to say that you can't outweigh something that doesn't exist. That is not true. What weighs more? Me, or my son..... just so all of you know, I don't have a son. But my weight is still heavier than my son's weight of nothing. Nothing has a weight of nothing... Something weighs more than nothing. Also, there are benefits (such as people being able to do what they want in their last three months), but those benefits are so lacking that they simply can not outweigh the costs. Off her second point--> She says that there is no way to make it final. But remember, debate is generally about debating opinions, not facts. Just because I win the debate of abortion as being wrong, doesn't make it a fact. It is an opinion proven at that point in time. Same as in this resolution. If I happen to win, doesn't mean that there are actually more weight in the costs than benefits. It simply says that in this debate there were more costs than benefits. In the end, something weighs more than nothing. My costs flow through this round and the benefits do not exist. I urge you to see that if I am on a teeter totter and my son (that does not exist) is on the other end of the teeter totter, that he will go up and I will be like the fat kid on the bottom. So please vote Pro. Thank You!
Resolved- The costs of informing the public of the world ending 3 months prior outweigh the benefits

I negate, Resolved: The costs of informing the public of the world ending 3 months prior outweight the benefits. To negate, I simply must win that there is no truth in the above statement. I have no burden to prove that the converse of the statement is true. Nowhere is it stated that the CON debater must prove the converse of the resolution true; rather, the con simply must prove the negative of the resolution true. That is, it is legitimate for me to win if I prove the following to be true: Resolved - The costs of informing the public of the world ending do NOT outweigh the benefits There are two main points. First, that there are no benefits of informing the public of the world ending three months prior. If this is true, then the resolution can not be affirmed (you can't vote PRO) because it is an impossible scenario. My opponent makes a list of costs of taking this particular action, and he reserves the right to add more costs to the list. The problem, however, is that he provides no benefits and actually says that he will allow his opponent to provide the benefits. In the case that I don't provide a list of benefits, he hasn't provided a list of benefits, and he didn't reserve the right to list benefits in the future, it must be assumed that there are no benefits to taking this action. Thus, remember, if there are no benefits, then the costs can't outweigh the benefits: you can't compare something to something which doesn't exist. Second, there is no way to weigh between these costs and benefits. Even IF my opponent is able to win that some benefits exist (but remember, I told you why this is impossible), the round must go to the CON. This is because my opponent provides no way to weigh between the costs and the benefits. At the point at which we have no weighing mechanism to make a comparison between the two, he can't tell you that the costs outweigh the benefits. This is because it is an unwarranted claim; if we don't know how to weigh between the two, then it is impossible to say that one outweighs the other. Since my opponent doesn't provide a weighing mechanism through which we can determine that the resolution is true, then it can't be affirmed (you can't vote PRO). Thus, you vote CON. Remember, all I have to do as the CON is prove that the resolution is not true.
Resolved- The costs of informing the public of the world ending 3 months prior outweigh the benefits

Resolved- The costs of informing the public of the world ending 3 months prior outweigh the benefits. I believe that three months is too much time for the public to know such information. Not because they don't deserve to know, but simply because their lives would be much worse if they knew this information. People always want to be able to enjoy the last part of their life, however, the end of their life would only be enjoyed if they did not know when they were going to die. I would suggest that a more appropriate time to inform the public would be maybe 2 weeks, but to inform them 3 months prior would be national suicide. The economy would seize to exist, people would begin invading stores as there would be no one in the store (because people would stop going to work). With no one working, the society would stop running appropriately and it would be 3 months that would simply be more enjoyed if they did not know for another 2 or 2 and a half months. Costs: As it is my job to inform the costs within this resolution, I will simply allow my opponent to come up with the benefits. Cost 1: The economy would crash. This is obvious. If people knew that they were not going to be alive in 3 months, there would be no reason to try to make money. The economy would crash mostly because of the following costs... Cost 2: Most people would stop going to work. With no reason to make money, people wouldn't bother working. Which means that no trucks to ship gasoline or products anywhere. Which means the gasoline supply would run low in individual societies, that alone could mean the economy crashing. 3 months, is simply too long. Cost 3: People would get their supplies in hurtful ways. With money nearly coming obsolete, people would still need to get their supplies. This would undoubtedly mean that at least some people would be "forcing" people to give them supplies. Certainly the government would try to help to keep things under control. But with everyone being on their own, they will not be able to control everything. The best way to control the people, would be to inform them around 2 weeks prior to the world ending, NOT three months. Cost 4: Most children would stop going to school. I for one would seize going to school. School is meant to prepare you for you life. But there would be no point if you weren't going to have a life. Therefore, children would not bother going to school. Cost 5: Life as we know it would stop. The stability of the society would basically be destroyed. I can't say this with certainty. But all running walks of life could collapse. Such as electric companies, farmers, convenient store workers, truckers, etc... The only place that life would probably continue would be religious establishments. Cost 6: Happiness would lessen. With all of these instabilities and crashes, the happiness of the people would inevitably be worse. A cost, that can hardly be outweighed by any benefit. In the end, there are simply too many costs. (I reserve the right to add to the list of costs) I now stand ready for all benefits and refutation. Thank You!
legalize cannabis

In response to my opponents first contention. The issue is not which is safer the issue is what is the purpose of legalizing cannabis . I see no REAL purpose in getting into the ins and outs of whether cigarettes should be legal or alcohol for that matter both these things are good money spinners for the governments. Does my opponent also want to make the argument that the only real problem with cannabis is the long term health effects of the drug .I wont debate even whether this statement is true as it is irrelevant to the facts. I personally was a regular user of cannabis for a number of years and I found it was a highly addictive drug it gave me problems with motivation so much so I missed day's of work I failed my college exams due to the fact I just couldn't be bothered with the course work, it dulled me mentally so when I eventually came to do my driving test I forgot numerous functions of the car .Financially it also put a strain on me. So the point I'm making is it goes far beyond long lasting mental health effects . However let's also assume that my opponents statement is correct in that it has no long term effects except in those with pre-existing mental conditions , by legalizing it and making it more readily available to people, these ones with these underlying problems have access to it where they wouldn't necessarily have before therefore increasing the number of people that cannabis would affect in the long term. Contention 2. I have no real problem with it being used for medicinal purposes assuming there is no decent alternative and it's distributed under STRICT guidelines . Medicinal use is not really up for debate at this time as I don't have enough facts to go on . In as much as I'm not aware what cannabis does that other medications cannot. Contention 3. No problem with the use of hemp either for industrial purposes. To make clear the issue . Cannabis should not be readily available in corner shops or stores for use by the general public. If my opponent believes it should be can he give a solid reason for legalizing cannabis in this way? As this is the issue of the debate.
legalize cannabis

I humbly accept this argument.For the sake of clarity, I offer a more apt resolution: "Resolved: Cannabis should be legalized."Before any argumentation is to take place, I offer these definitions (the accordance of these definitions is to be determined by my opponent):Cannabis: A tall annual dioecious plant (Cannabis sativa), native to central Asia and having alternate, palmately divided leaves and tough bast fibers.Legalize: The act of making lawfulI will present my argument in three contentions:Contention 1: The recreational drug use of cannabis is safer than the use of tobacco products and alcohol (both of which are legal) and does not bear any signficant long-term effects for users that do not have pre-existing mental illness.Contention 2: Cannabis has many medical properties and can be used as an herbal alternative to pharmaceutical drugs.Contention 3: Cannabis in its industrious form, hemp, can be used to make a variety of products including paper, construction material, clothing, rope, fabrics, protein powders, and much more.I suggest the next round's use should be to provide elaboration of the contentions/arguments, and for the initial rebuttals. Definition sources:wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwnthefreedictionary.com/cannabis
Abortion is a form of murder

(a) Who introduced "malice aforethought" to the discussion, sir? It was not I. (b) I certainly need an elaboration to respond. I'm left with not much meat to respond here, so I guess I'll put out some new arguments or to re-sum-up my arguments. I believe my opponent agrees that if a fetus were human (and known beyond a doubt to be a human being), then abortion would be murder. He contends that a fetus is not a human being and thus not deserving of protections against murder, however, so it is this definition and question of "when life as a human being begins" as the contention, and he further asserts that if there is a chance but no certainty that a fetus is a human being, that we should assume it is not so we don't waste a right-to-life unnecessarily on the fetus. Clearly I disagree. If I were in charge of demolishing a building and was ready to push down the plunger to bring it down, but I had the slightest rumor of a whisper that some homeless guy was living inside, I'd make damned sure that the building was empty with no living person in it before blowing it up. If I killed a person I didn't know was there, I would be guilty of manslaughter (accidental infliction of death) under both the law and in my own book. The usual pro-abortion argument, that I have noticed my opponent has not brought up, is that its a "woman's right to choose." An adult may choose to kill, but that does not give the choice to do so more meaning than the victim's right to live. I wonder if my opponent has refrained from this common argument because he's sufficiently experienced to know its the definition, or defining mark, of when a human being's life begins that is the contention and a "woman's right" is really not the contentious issue, or if he recognizes that a right to live overrules another's right to choose to take it, and its the where-does-a-right-to-live contention that is the question.
Abortion is a form of murder

This is unbelievable, but I have somehow procrastinated until I have only 3 minutes left. The essence of my rebuttal would be: (a) The discussion about "malice aforethought" is irrelevant to the debate, because I have never actually used it in my argument. (b) When I said abortion is wrong only if X AND Y, it meant something quite different from what you have understood. I'll elaborate, in my next post.
Abortion is a form of murder

Thank you for a quick and thorough rebuttal. Although I will spend a small amount of time defending my definition, I think we both agree regarding the essence of the debate: whether or not a fetus is a human being. -----------------------DEFINITION ("malice aforethought")------------------------------ My opponent questions my definition of murder on the "malice aforethought" part. Pro's doubts are misfounded, because "malice aforethought" is a technical legal term that basically translates in layman language to "intentional" or "grossly reckless". Even mercy killings can be murder. [1] ---------------------IS THE FETUS A HUMAN BEING?----------------------------- Pro says I ignored his arguments from R1, but I implicitly refuted his argument by refuting his definition. Explicitly, I refuted his PCA #3. Using my new definition that he has accepted, since my opponent has not shown that fetuses are human beings, he has not proved that abortion is murder. I will elaborate on 2 possibilities here: (a) Currently indeterminate: If the status of the fetus as a human being is currently indeterminate, then as I argued earlier, abortion will not be murder. This is because to pronounce a moral judgment on the unknown is foolishness. (b) A fetus is not a human person because it lacks: i) Conscious thought and memory: My opponent argues that since a fetus WILL IN THE FUTURE develop cognitive processes, it should be considered a human being. This only shows that the fetus WILL IN THE FUTURE be a human person. But it is not a human person now, nor has ever been so in its past. ii, iii, iv) The mistake Pro makes here is that he considers each of my points separately. They should be considered collectively. I'll use an analogy to explain what I mean: Con: I argue that everything that can fly and is human should need a flying license. Pro: Birds can fly and don't need a flying license. And there are many janitors in my neighborhood that don't need a flying license. Con: You should take my points collectively, not separately. My opponent argues that fetuses COULD BE recognized as a legal human person, but I argue that to do so would be absurd. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." This means that if fetuses are human beings, they should share the same rights as all humans. Will we grant fetuses Social Security Numbers, include them in censuses, and allow them freedom of free assembly? Fetuses of the world, assemble? I ask my readers to consider whether something that cannot think, recall, breathe, or make sounds; something that lacks a social and legal identity is a human being. -------- Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.un.org...