BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Problem of Animal Suffering (Round II)

Unfortunately, KRF has once again misinterpreted the original argument - although I have less sympathy this time, since I explicitly addressed this point in the last debate. The argument is an inductive one, attempting to show that animal suffering is improbable given Christian theism (and obviously not surprising give naturalism - he can argue this point if he wishes). I explicitly pointed this out, even going as far as to provide a syllogistic form of the argument when it was requested. That KRF still harbours the belief that the argument I am presenting aims at logical incompatibility between animal suffering and Christian presumptions is therefore strange indeed. For clarity's sake, here is the syllogism I presented: P1. If God has the property of omni-benevolence, he would keep animal suffering to the absolute minimum. P2. If God is omnipotent, he has the ability to keep animal suffering to the absolute minimum. P3. It is probable from the vast amounts of suffering in the animal world that animal suffering is not kept to an absolute minimum. :. Such a God probably does not exist Why am I pressing this point? The answer is simple - KRF attempts to avoid the force of the argument by claiming that it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing animal suffering. This is irrelevant. This objection would only be valid if he were addressing the logical argument. By its very nature, a probabilistic argument allows for the possibility that it is false. Throughout his round, he also makes what could be a valid argument - although this attempt is poisoned by his belief that all he has to do is show that it is possible animal suffering and a tri-omni God are compatible. He claims that the premise that an all-good God would wish to minimise suffering is unsupported. In other words - perhaps God doesn't care about the suffering of creatures other than humans! Well, most Christians would presumably disagree, citing his loving nature and the fact that he created them as part of his maximally perfect plan as reason for why he would care about them. But it goes even deeper than that. Does a perfectly loving God seriously not give a damn about near-sentient or even sentient animals suffering terribly as they die? Most modern people recognise that animal suffering; for instance in experimentation or farming, should be minimised as far as feasible. Sane, rational people don't run over creatures on purpose, or beat their pets to death for fun. If this is at all morally objectionable from the Christian world-view, then this objection does not work. Does KRF really want to pursue this line of reasoning? We shall see.
The Problem of Animal Suffering (Round II)

Thank you, Kinesis, for reopening this argument. As indicated in Kinesis' opening round, this is a second attempt at this debate. He has made it clear that the problem of animal suffering, in so far as he is concerned, is a problem of inconsistency within the Christian Worldview. It follows, then, that if the Christian Worldview cannot maintain rational coherency within its presuppositions, then it ought to be rejected as a philosophy. Here are the three premises that Kinesis and I agree upon: 1. God is all powerful. 2. God is all good. 3. Animal suffering exists. From here, Kinesis concludes that there is a logical contradiction. His error is when he states, "If God is perfectly good, it is crystal clear that we should expect all animal suffering to be kept to a minimum." Nowhere is this biblically stated or implied. Indeed, such a statement is far from crystal clear. His only support for this statement is that Christians cannot appeal to "typical Christian answers," whatever they are. In other words, there is no support whatsoever for this claim. Injecting an unsupported and more easily defeated premise into the worldview he hopes to dismantle is a "crystal clear" straw man fallacy. My rebuttal is simple. Kinesis is overlooking an entirely valid fourth premise that removes the logical problem altogether. 4. God has a morally sufficient reason for the animal suffering which exists. This fourth premise is completely compatible with Christian presuppositions. The bible is clear that God never does anything evil. This is part and parcel of the Christian worldview which, I remind the readers, is where Kinesis is attempting to show inconsistency. This worldview already presupposes that God only does that which is morally right. Thus, there is no internal inconsistency. If anything, Kinesis is presenting--not a logical problem--but a psychological problem. The real problem is that critics of the Christian worldview (and let's face it, humans in general) want God to give us a good reason for the suffering in our world. To not have that reason is, to the critic, intolerable. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God." [1] God has a morally righteous reason for including animal suffering as a part of his plan, which he is not required to explain to us in detail. To conclude, Kinesis is attempting to show the Christian worldview as logically contradictory within its own premises. He has done this by adding a premise that is not upheld by the bible, meaning he is injecting non-Christian presuppositions in a straw man attempt to discredit Christianity. Unless Kinesis can show that Christianity, as a philosophical worldview, presupposes God MUST minimize animal suffering in order to qualify as Good, he has failed to uphold his resolution. In the meantime, I have shown that there is no logical contradiction at play here when all Christian presuppositions are accounted for. I think the readers for their time and await Kinesis' cross examination. SOURCES 1. Deuteronomy 29:29
I am the worst debater

"I make bad claims" There are times when even I make bad claims. And I have a win ratio of 85%. "I suck at refuting" Many debaters suck at refuting. This is common. Over time you will learn how to improve your refuting. "I got hacked" This debate isn't about getting hacked. Your goal is to prove that you are the worst debater on DDO. Getting hacked has nothing to do with debating. This arguments does not support your position. "I am the worst at arguing" Proof? "I basically can only beat noobs" If you can beat noobs then this means that there are people who are worse at debating than you are. This argument contradicts your position. Pro has a win ratio of 0%. Here are some other people who have the same win ratio: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... This shows that there are other people who are just as bad as debating as you are. I think I have proved that you are not the worst debater on DDO.
Legalize narcotics

Alas, we know that harsher penalties for drug offenses do not always work, if they ever do at all. In countries like China and Saudi Arabia the penalties for drug offenses are far more brutal than those in the United States, and yet they too have drug pushers, users, and traffickers just as we do. Even the death penalty is not sufficient to serve as a deterrent; as long as people can make a profit doing something, they are going to keep doing it. No law or law enforcement agency could possibly stand up to the combined ingenuity of thousands of profit-hungry drug dealers. Ever. The guaranteed failure of any system of prohibition is substantiated by history. Has there ever been a time in which a substance was outlawed, and then successfully eradicated? And what was that society like? Did the citizens there enjoy the same freedoms we do? How much freedom must be sacrificed to ensure every citizen is free from the evils of drug use. I will concede that drug addiction is a terrible thing, and that it can and has ruined many lives. However, it is the responsibility of people to make decision for themselves. The analogy to letting people steal or kill if they want to is flawed; drug use is a personal choice. It would be wrong to force drugs on another person, but what a person does to their own body is their own business. By what right does the government claim to know what you can and cannot do to your own body? Why should a police officer or law maker have more say over your life than you do? Would you really want to live in a world where government officials could arrest you for being a danger to yourself? And what constitutes a "danger" to one's self? Should there be laws that keep people from eating poorly, or not exercising? And, most importantly, who is to make these decisions and enforce all these laws? Who is wise enough to know how all people should live their lives?
Legalize narcotics

I'm going to limit my argument to the topics you have already mentioned. I find it unacceptable to state that we should give up on the war against drugs. More effective methods of cracking down on drugs need to be enforced, that is true, but lowering the amount of money spent against drugs will inadvertently KILL PEOPLE! And a significant portion of those will be students, people who by all means can go out into the world as good and productive people if not for the tempting influence of drugs. Criminal punishments need to be stricter in dealing with drugs in order to reduce the amazing amount of repeat offenders. Its true that despite large amounts of money are being spent at the governmental level, the current legal system is not enough. But we cannot simply give up! it is not the right choice to say "Screw it, let people die", just because they "want to"! the psychological impact of drugs is horrendous. And the users aren't the only ones that suffer. family and friends may have to endure years of therapy if a close family member DIES of drug abuse. Drugs are too strong to be able to beat without a huge organized effort. We don't let people play with fire just because they want to. We don't let people steal because they want to. We don't let people kill just because they want to. We don't even let people kill themselves because they want to. So why should we let literally millions of people suffer from drugs, directly and indirectly? I do not believe in complaining unless you have a solution however. We need to enforce strong punishments against casual users, because they provide the cash necessary for drugs to survive. Shame through extended community service, harsh jail time for 6-12 months, and more for repeat offenders. A government provided budget for schools to set up programs to help educate kids about drugs. If you teach them from a young age to avoid drugs, chances are that unless they live in an environment that encourages drug use, they will never use drugs. As for drug dealers themselves, 5-20 years in prison, with limited appeals. We do not want these people on the streets, period. They are purposely killing and harming people for money, and should be charged with mass second degree murder and armed assault. Watching people around you die and doing nothing, when you have the ability to help them, and still living with yourself... you couldn't do it if you were any kind of good person. It is never alright to be okay with pain and death. We would never survive as a race if everyone thought the same way as you.
Legalize narcotics

In general, most people accept that narcotics are bad for you. Heroin kills you, marijuana makes you lazy, etc, etc. So it would seem logical to say that drugs should be against the law. But there are two major, major flaws in this argument. The first is the issue of feasibility. Look at the current state of the drug war. Countless billions spent investigating crime, countless MORE billions spent incarcerating nonviolent persons on minor drug charges, with no end in sight. Has drug use declined in recent years? What all has the drug war accomplished? The old joke is that if money would win the war on drugs, we would have already won. Every statistic, even those put out by the DEA, indicate that drug-related offenses have been increasing steadily since the drug war's inception. By what logic does one claim that MORE money, or MORE freedom sacrificed will finally eradicate drug use? Even assuming the government has unlimited funds to spend on crusading against drugs (as opposed to the $9 trillion dollar debt it currently holds to its name), exactly how WOULD a war on drugs be won? More importantly, COULD it be won? Already in America and many other countries we have seen massive scalings back on personal liberty in the name of security. Cameras in almost every conceivable public location; law enforcement being granted (unconstitutional) secret warrants to search the homes of those SUSPECTED of drug offenses; US law enforcement agents invading sovereign nations to pursue drug traffickers....Where does it end? What reasonable, legal, effective means could be invoked to win a war on drugs? If one is willing to make the massive stretch of the imagination needed to accept that a war on drugs ever could be won, the question still exists: should it be won? Does the government have the right to tell a person what they can and cannot do to their own body? The Constitution makes no mention of the government having any authority over what a person puts in there body. There are already amendments that prohibit the government from circumscribing alcohol use; what makes drugs any different? In short, a person's body is their own property, and by no means can the government tell them what to do with it.
Hillary is qualified to be president

Although we are in differnt political parties, I think we will see eachothers points of view. Let Of course, Hillary would not be the best candidate for president, but out of the two we have, I can safely say that Hillary is a better option. I want to start of my point off with a definition. The definition of foolish is, "resulting from or showing a lack of sense; ill-considered; unwise. " As we see, Donald Trump fits this definition because he is unwise in his words. He sparks controversy, which may be good or bad. The U. S. government has some censorship in order to protect its citizens, but Donald Trump is not abiding the censorship. He has his own censorship. Trump and his team try to censor media and the news in order to make him a more likeable person. Even though people say that people have freedom of speech through Trump, since he allows himself to make sexist and racist remarks, they actually don't. Donald Trump is not obeying the first amendment. He accuses people for their political stands. He humiliats people. No offence, but Trump reminds me of Adolf Hitler. Hitler admired the so-called "superace". Just look at Trump. He makes fun of disabled people, he is a racist, he is a sexist, and he humiliates some beliefs. You say that Trump is a business man, and that he can pay the debts. He is a "businessman". How can he help America if he has over $650 million in debt. . http://www.independent.co.uk...
Hillary is qualified to be president

I will go against the argument "Hillary is qualified to be president"First off Hillary has done so many things evil in her life that she cannot and, in fact, shouldn't even be allowed to be president. Hillary is worse than Trump for the following reasons:Hillary supports the killing of babies, even after the nine week mark, as well as after birth. She says that babies aren't babies until they leave the hospital. This is outrageous and wrong, and she knows it. She is pro-choice, which is pro-death. Hillary sent private and confidential information by email, and when it was discovered, deleted about 30,000 emails, and lied saying that they were about a yoga program and her daughter's wedding. Really? Like Trump said, that must have been a big wedding. According to nytimes. com (. http://www.nytimes.com......) 8 of the emails that were released contained top secret information, 36 contained secret information, 8 contained confidential information, and 2,000 were classified as confidential. These emails show that she can jeopardize America by giving secret information to the wrong people. Hillary should be in jail. In newly leaked videos, the Democratic party were hiring people to incite violence at Trump's rallies, and they were also trying to figure out how to accomplish voting fraud for Hillary. Hillary left a couple people to die. She was heartless. Hillary has done terrible things that people, who have only done one fifth of what she did, have been put in jail for. Hillary is evil, and will ruin America, and she has so many other faults and failures. Trump will set a new stage. Hillary will only continue what Obama has done and worse, and nothing will change dramatically. Trump on the other hand, who is not a politician and doesn't use the tactic "lie about everything if it makes you look good just to gain the people's vote," which is what Hillary does, will make a change. Trump is a business man and he knows how to make good deals with our allies. Trump will wipe the slate clean and we can start fresh. Trump is better than Hillary because Trump has never given anyone confidential information, and he will stick to what he has said he will do. Trump is for the American people, Hillary is for herself. Trump is better than Hillary and is therefore qualified to be president not Hillary. Thank you.
I think Rouge decks in Yu-Gi-Oh are better than Meta decks.

If you go in the comments, someone has made a comment on the Atlantean complaint, and I run PURE Atlantean. A deck that's pure Atlantean without a Mermail engine, or something. Also, somehow, my I was making my argument and it just froze on me and just submitted itself. Yes, I will agree that it depends on the cards you run. Lets face it, there aren't any decks or archetypes that focus on stopping tribute summoning, I think. While some archetypes have some sort of out to a certain card, that's about it. For example, Madolches have an Xyz monster that can spin 2 cards the opponent controls into the deck (without targeting). Neo-Spacians have Grand Mole and can be splashed in with other decks.
I think Rouge decks in Yu-Gi-Oh are better than Meta decks.

Here I don't need to make much of an argument as my opponent has even pratically conceded to the debate as he claims that it depends on the deck, which already creates a semantical concession by my opponent as the debate resolution here is an absolute and as Con, all I have to do is find one issue where the resolution defended by Pro is faulty and I win the debate. He concedes this by conceding to Atlanteans being a good deck despite the fact that they are indeed a meta themselves, creating a pratical concession in this debate by my opponent.
CNN is Fake News

"Once again, this wasn't a debate." Never once before did my opponent claim that this isn't a debate. Its rather convenient that he is making this claim in the last round when the debate hasn't gone his way. If this isn't a debate then why make a debate in a debate section, challenge someone to debate, and then attempt to make debate arguments? In any case any debate made in the debate section is a debate and should be judged as such. "Nah, I was just trying to find someone who would try to defend the pathetic network and get a little laugh." "I simply created this "debate" to get enjoyment and laugh at the fact that someone is trying to defend this pathetic news channel. This was merely for my enjoyment and that only." "I was hoping for a more stupid debater to laugh at." My opponent now has made personal attacks and now is trying to use mockery in place of arguments. This violates the code of conduct on this forum and should lose points because of poor conduct. "It is the responsibility of my opponent to prove his case, not me." My opponent is the one leveling a very serious accusation against a major organization. When making accusations it is common knowledge that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Can you prove for instance that you are not a rapist and have never raped anyone in your life? If you don't have footage of every moment of your life this will be incredibly difficult to prove. That is why the burden of proof is on your accuser to prove your guilt not you to prove your innocence. I am not required to disprove arguments my opponent has made when he refuses to provide sufficient evidence for them. The lack of evidence is enough to remove his points from consideration. I have also shown that isolated incidents of fake news does not make an organization overall fake news and as we all know most of the time CNN is reporting on actual events even if many times they do have a bias and my opponent has failed to even address this point.
CNN is Fake News

Once again, this wasn't a debate. I simply created this "debate" to get enjoyment and laugh at the fact that someone is trying to defend this pathetic news channel. This was merely for my enjoyment and that only. Now, let us get to the main part. I wanted to see if you would look at the situations further rather than looking at the links and replying like this, "picture proves nothing." In the hurricane incident, where you state, "and asks me to hunt down the evidence in some comments section. It is the responsibility of my opponent to prove his case, not me." Isn't a bit more fun to know they looked at the evidence themselves without any help? It's okay, I know you can't scroll down a little bit and look at the first 5 comments. I was hoping for a more stupid debater to laugh at.
CNN is Fake News

It seems like my opponent has the attitude that he can throw out unproven links, images, and reddit posts and its on the opposition to disprove him. The reality is that the burden of proof is on him. First one, a picture of headlines proves nothing. Headlines tell you very little about the actual facts of the stories. Second one, my opponent has admitted to sloppiness and using the wrong link and now claims they were deceptively far away from the hurricane without a shred of evidence and asks me to hunt down the evidence in some comments section. It is the responsibility of my opponent to prove his case not me. Third one, he claims Ted Cruz has proof but my opponent fails to demonstrate what that proof even is. My opponent has the audacity to ask that I find his proof for his case for him when it is his burden to prove his case and then he himself admits that he didn't do a good job explaining anything and apologizes for it. For the fourth, again the claim that CNN is weird has nothing to do with the debate topic of whether CNN is fake news or not. My opponent also failed to respond to my point that a few mistakes doesn't make an organization and CNN has to overall be making fake stories not just in a few instances. Some real example of fakes news are the National Enquirer or The Onion whose main purpose is to create fake news and virtually all their stories are fabrications.
CNN is Fake News

Nah, I was just trying to find someone who would try to defend the pathetic network and get a little laugh. And I think you understand what I mean by fake news. First one, is there not a photo? The second example, I linked the wrong link. They claimed they were in far away locations. For the hurricane, look at the comments of the video. For the final example, Ted Cruz had proof. I expected you to look at the comments and research the examples further, apologies for not explaining everything. For the final reply, no duh. I said, if you read it correctly, "Fun fact: CNN is also kind of weird."