BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Sorry about all the confusion I've caused in this debate, but I think we can get back on track with a rechallenge. Full ResolutionThe Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is sound.The BoP is on pro. DefinitionsLeibnizian Cosmological Argument: "1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.3. The universe is an existing thing.4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God."[1]Sound: " Of or relating to an argument in which all the premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises."[2]Rules1. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.2. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.3. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: Presentation all arguments by proRound 2: Presentation of arguments by con and rebuttal by proRound 3: Rebuttal by con and defense of original arguments by proRound 4: Defense of original argument by con and a bye round by pro (to make for even rounds; only use one line for your final post)Sources[1]: http://www.theopedia.com...[2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Aliens exist.

Alien = a organism that originates from a world other than Earth. If you think about how how big the universe is, then surely it is near infinite. In an infinite universe, there is infinite possibilities. With infinite possibilities comes the possibility if aliens existing. Surely it can't be just us. I personally believe that aliens are quite far off so I don't believe the stories that people tell about green men or flying saucers. But then again, I don't totally disregard what they say. A man sees what he sees.
Women and Men have the same physical opportunities

This argument is in response to your comment on "Should female athletes be able to compete against men" in which you said: "Physical strength depends entirely on your lifestyle (e. G. Diet, exercise, etc. ) and not due to what sex you are. " By this I assume you mean that regardless of your sex, you have the same abilities and opportunities as the other sex; correct me if I am wrong. I challenge this notion on the grounds of biology, evolution, and common sense.
who was better chiang kai shek or mao zedong

Despite killing many dissidents in taiwan, it pales in comparison to mao. Who killed millions of people through his blunderous great leap forward and the cultural revolution. And even though chiang was very authoritarian he at the very least was able to keep the trains running on time. Also, his son established a better democracy in taiwan than on the mainland within a few years. Under his leadership , taiwan's economy prospered into one of the four asian tigers and all the while keeping its culture intact. If we look at mao's rule, it was filled with political instability caused by the red guards of the cultural revolution. Who not only killed the intelligent people and the artists. But, also destroyed many of china's great works.
Peter was the Rock upon which the Church was built.

Well I hope that my opponent will be able to post in the next round, but if not then I'd just like to put down this quick quote from good old Martin Luther. "Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand Jesus said 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven for I left them on Earth. Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.(Martin Luther 1530 after he was excommunicated) Regardless of whether we're Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox we all have to admit that Peter is the rock, but the issue of his successors gets a little tougher to explain.
Peter was the Rock upon which the Church was built.

My opponent has brought up some great arguments, and I'll gladly discuss them, but first I need to point out that they've plagiarized from this website which makes it invalid. http://www.byunewtestamentcommentary.com...... Anyway with that off my chest let me just point out that most of your statement, until Joseph Smith and Apostalic Authority, is an affirmation and support statement for the Catholic Churches belief.(aka what you said is what the Church says) I'd also like to remind you that you've taken a detour from the topic of "Who is the rock?" and moved on to "What're the keys." Despite this I can refute these claims with a couple verses... 1. In John 21:15-25 Jesus made Peter the Shepherd of the Church and told him to feed his Lambs and Sheep. The strange thing here is our Lord's distinction between the Lambs and Sheep which could be a reference to the Christians and Apostles whom he would feed or the Clery and the Lay people. 2. When the disciples argued about who was greatest Jesus then turned to Peter and said that Satan desired him(Since he was the top dog) and commanded him to STRENGTHEN his brethren. And I hate to burst your bubble, but Joseph Smith has no authority in any of these Church/Christian matters since he denied The Lord's Divinity and left the Faith. Therfore he can not be cited as a source. Thank you and I'll reply as soon as I can :)
Peter was the Rock upon which the Church was built.

In the passage that we are examining, Jesus says to Peter, "I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18"19) When Jesus promises to entrust keys to Peter, part of the promise is that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [the church]." (The grammar of this sentence tells us that "it" means "the church" because "the church" is the closest referent and the Greek pronoun translated "it" .The idea of gates points directly at the keys required to open them. Jesus holds the keys of "the gates of hell," not Peter. Instead, to Peter are entrusted "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:19). Interest in the next world, of course, is plainly present in this latter expression. In addition, possession of these keys does not mean that the holder is a mere doorkeeper, a person who checks the identity of those entering and leaving. By being entrusted with keys, Peter stands as Jesus" fully authorized representative. This dimension appears in the expression "I will give." Moreover, these keys establish Peter"s authority over earthly church matters, a fact firmly present in Jesus" words "bind on earth" and "loose on earth." In a word, Jesus is handing to Peter the chief responsibility for leading his Church. But Peter does not carry this duty by himself. The keys will be held jointly among the Twelve, as Jesus later indicates: "Verily I say unto you [Twelve], Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18). In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith in January 1841, the Lord confirms this observation: "[the] Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth" (Doctrine and Covenants 124:128; also John 20:23; Doctrine and Covenants 90:6; 112:16).
Peter was the Rock upon which the Church was built.

Was the rock upon which the Church of our Lord to be built Peter or merely Peter's confession? Well my answer to this would have to be is it too far fetched to say both? The Early Christians unanimously agreed that the rock upon which the Church was built was BOTH the Confession and Person of the Blessed Apostle. Letter of St. Clement to James- "Let it be known my lord that Simon Peter for the sake of the True Faith and the most sure foundation of this doctrine was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this reason by Jesus himself with his truthful mouth was named Peter." AD 221 Clementine Homilies AD 221- "Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome, For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm Rock, the foundation of the Church." Origen- "See what The Lord said to Peter, that Great Foundation of the Church and solid Rock, upon which Christ founded the Church." Exodus V - "Look upon Petef the most solid of rocks upon whom the Church was built" Homilies on Exodus 5:4 - "Upon Peter, as of the Earth the Church was founded." Epistle to Rome Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarb(disciple of John), and many others also confirm this. Now I'd like to get into the verse itself and I'd better warn you to hold on because it's about to get a little deep :) We know, based on the Bible and History, that Jesus spoke Aramiac and this sermon in Phillipi( Aramaic stronghold) would have been told to the crowd in Aramiac. The word Kephas( Peter) in Aramaic mean a large stone and the word for a small stone( Confession) was Evna, but Jesus never said this. The translation of the exact words Jesus spoke on that day would have been this. "And I say unto you that your are Kepha and upon this Kepha I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." As a quick grammatical sidenote, the word "this" can only refer to the preceding pronoun in the sentence which is "Peter." Thanks
Peter was the Rock upon which the Church was built.

Matthew 16:18- "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It isn't stated once claiming that Peter is the rock which the church was built on. He's talking to Peter about his faith and what he believes, and Peter bares testimony that he knows Christ is the son of God. Rock is referring to Christ. He is referring to what Peter had previously stated about him being the son of God, and is stating that he (Christ) is the foundation of the Gospel.
Peter was the Rock upon which the Church was built.

Hello, I'll be doing this debate on whether or not the Church of Jesus Christ was built on Peter. Let me just say that no I'm not Catholic, but I'll be taking their position in this debate just to experiment with different views, and for the sake of a good argument. I'd hope that whoever accepts this debate is a Protestant, but anybody will do. Thanks and may the best argument win! :) Alright my first piece of evidence is Mathew 16:18 which says "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." KJV Go ahead and put down your rebuttals and I'll get back to you whenever I can. Thanks!
Wikipedia should be a valid source for projects in schools

Now, as you can see, my opponent has not given any definitions. As such, my opponent must accept mine as along I can provide a source that shows that the definition is accurate. The definitions I cite are as follows: Valid- sound; just; well-founded (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Just- in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Sound- competent, sensible, or valid (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Source- a book, statement, person, etc. , supplying information (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Project- Education. a supplementary, long-term educational assignment necessitating personal initiative, undertaken by an individual student or a group of students. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) School- a large number of fish or aquatic animals of one kind swimming together (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Should- must; ought (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Now, with combining my opponent's burden of proof, the resolution my opponent created and the definitions, my opponent must prove that Wikipedia should be a valid source for projects in schools. Here are my first round arguments: 1. My opponent says that Wikipedia SHOULD be a valid source. This insinuates that there must be a reason that it must/ought to be a valid source. However, my opponent gives no reason as to why that it should be changed into a valid source. Thus, it must be seen that my opponent is not supporting the resolution and must lose until such a reason is given. 2. Fish/other aquatic animals cannot understand human languages. Valid is defined as sound which is defined as competent/sensible. It is certainly not sensible to use a source that cannot be understood and this source would not be competent in supplying information. Thus, it cannot be considered sound, which means Wikipedia cannot be considered valid. 3. Fish have no means to use Wikipedia. The Wikipedia my opponent is arguing for exists only on the Internet. Sadly, for my opponent, computers and other Internet-reaching devices do not exist in water by themselves. Moreover, aquatic animals do not have the digits necessary to type on a computer to use Wikipedia. Thus, Wikipedia cannot be considered competent and thus cannot be considered sound. Hence, it cannot be considered a valid source for projects in schools. 4. Fish must keep moving to survive. In order for the respiratory system of fish to work, they must constantly be in motion. As using a computer would require them to stand still, using Wikipedia would require them to die. This certainly cannot be considered sensible, sound or valid thus making Wikipedia not a valid source for projects in schools. I await my opponent's rebuttal.
IVF Debate

Genetic testing involves examining your DNA, the chemical database that carries instructions for your body's functions. Genetic testing can reveal changes or alterations in your genes that may cause illness or disease. This type of medical testing identifies changes in chromosomes, genes, or proteins. Genetic testing can be done for a multitude of reasons. According to the Mayo Clinic it can be used for Diagnostic testing to see if one has symptoms of a disease that may be caused by genetic alterations, genetic testing can reveal if you have the suspected disorder. It can be used for Prenatal testing. If you are pregnant, tests are available that can detect some types of abnormalities in your baby's genes. Down syndrome and trisomy 18 are two genetic disorders that are often screened for as part of prenatal genetic testing.Newborn screening is the most common type of genetic testing. In the United States, all states require that newborns be tested for certain gene abnormalities that cause specific conditions. This type of genetic testing is important because if results show there's a disorder, care and treatment can begin right away. It can also be used for Preimplantation testing. This test may be used when you attempt to conceive a child through in vitro fertilization. With in vitro fertilization, eggs are removed from a woman and sperm are collected from a man. The eggs are then fertilized with the sperm outside the body to create embryos. The embryos are then screened for genetic abnormalities. Embryos without abnormalities are implanted in the uterus in hopes of achieving pregnancy. The results of a genetic test can confirm or rule out a suspected genetic condition or help determine a person"s chance of developing or passing on a genetic disorder. More than 1,000 genetic tests are currently in use, and more are being developed. Embryos should be screened in order to determine if something is abnormal or to see if something could be detrimental to them. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.mayoclinic.org...
IVF Debate

There are ethical questions when it comes to IVF. Couples that are infertile can choose to use the IVF procedure. However, there is a cocktail of drugs that induce ovulation. This can cause "Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome that cause the ovaries to become swollen and painful"(In Vitro Fertilization). There are many other risks that are present and are a real possibility like stress, ovarian cancer, miscarriage, birth defects, and egg-retrieval procedure complications. Some of these risks can kill the baby or result in defects at birth if the procedure is successful. Yes, if you do get a good doctor, some of these complications can be avoided but most of these risks are by chance. A miscarriage cannot be screened for and cannot be taken out of the gene pool. If the doctor does not use sterile tools for the procedure, then you can get an infection that might get worse and kill the embryo and a chance that it might claim your life as well. There is a huge ethical question that is brought up many times, should we be playing as God? "The vatican argues that the research, development, and practice of ivf involve the destruction of embryos, i.e., the ""destruction of human life,"" and by engaging in assisted reproduction, humans are technologically interfering with a process that should remain under god's dominion (ratzinger 1987)"(An insight into the ethical issues related to in vitro fertilization). This brings up the question, Should we be the ones to interfere in a natural process, so far, nature has proven to work, why should we interfere in a working process. A by product of the IVF treatment is the accumulation of large numbers of embryos that are frozen for later use. However, the parents do not indicate what to do with the vast number of embryos, in result, there are large amounts of embryos frozen in clinics. Sources Mayo Clinic Staff. "In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)." Risks. Mayo Clinic, 27 June 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. A Banerjee. An insight into the ethical issues related to in vitro fertilization . The Internet Journal of Health. 2006 Volume 6 Number 1.
IVF Debate

IVF can be costly for couples, but current 15 states mandate some kind IVF insurance under certain requirements, according to attainIVF.com. IVF is considered a last resort by most medical professional, and for couples who truly want a child the cost may be worth it. If other methods such as concieving naturally, artificial insemination, or other methods don't work then IVF is the right path to take. Some of the other problems that arise from IVF, such as too many embryos being implanted resulting in an unsafe number of fetuses, are rare and do not happen when the couple uses a qualified medical professional and have educated themselves extensively on the issues. The couples also have the choice of choosing single or double embyro transfer. In a study conducted by DR. Thomas Molinaro he says, "Last year we published a trial where we demonstrated that a single genetically screened embryo could result in as many healthy babies as to untested embryos. In the coming years scientists will expand our ability to screen embryos by adding metabolic markers and using time lapse imaging to better identify embryos that grow at the right pace. As science and technology expand our knowledge, the chances for success with a single embryo will increase dramatically and it should become the standard of care." With this we can see that with the advancement of technology is decreasing the chances of women becoming pregnant with multiple babies. That is of course, unless she wants to. http://www.rmanj.com...
IVF Debate

Yes, couples do have the chance to help out another couple, however, the embryos are not that of the couple receiving the embryos from the original parents. Therefore, there is a legal battle between which couple are considered the parents because the embryo does not have the DNA of one of the couples. Also, the IVF is a stressful procedure. The financial stress of $12,000 to $17,000 for a procedure that has a high chance of failing? The stress of this operation is also an invasive procedure which adds on the emotional stress of the subject for the couple.
IVF Debate

Although some embryos can be discarded, couples also have the opportunity to donate their unused embryos to other couples who are unable to produce healthy embryos, or can donate the embryos for use in science to make advancements in IVF that can benefit all couples that turn to the procedure to start a family. People do not consider Embryos to be living because of the fact that they are not fully developed, and only consist of a few cells. But for those who are pro-life, they have the oppurtunity of donating that embryo.
IVF Debate

Question 5- There are legal issues with IVF. The main issue is what happens to the embryos when the couple splits up? There are different court cases with different outcomes, in a case in California, the judge ruled against the ex-wife and ruled that the embryos will be destroyed. The woman argued that the right to create life should be stronger than the contract that they signed. The judge acknowledged that they signed the contract knowing what would happen if they were to split up. There were other court cases like with Sofia Vergara and her ex-fiance over two frozen embryos. Barbash, Fred, and Justin Wm Moyer. "Calif. Judge Rejects Woman"s Plea to save Frozen Embryos from Destruction." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 19 Nov. 2015. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
IVF Debate

During IVF a couple of embryos are placed inside of the women. They are all placed, in order to give the women a higher chance of being able to give birth. The probability of an embyro living is also low which is why they put multiple. Doctors ensure not to put too many, because in some rare cases all the eggs can take and survive meaning a surplus of babies. The doctors also ensure that healthy embryos are being used in order to give the women a higher chance of giving birth. Overall IVF is a perfect for couple who can"t concieve naturally and/or have problems of concieving a child. http://www.oneatatime.org.uk...