BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial", Round Two!

RECAPITULATION: Last time I posted this debate, I was confronted with a certain Warren181. He accepted said debate in round 1 and went on to provide two rounds of utter bollocks followed by two rounds of forfeiting. I am now bringing back this debate, and here I quote my previous argument: "Many people believe that artificial means human-made, and that natural means from nature. Let's take a look at those definitions: First, "artificial" meaning human-made. But then that must mean that any human is "artificial"? Many would disagree, and I have never met a person who agrees. So, if "natural" and "artificial" are mutually exclusive, and many people say they are, this means that humans are "natural". But if humans are "natural" and the things that they make "artificial" things out of are also "natural", does that mean anything "artificial" is made by "natural" processes from "natural" things? BUT if something comes from "natural" materials and "natural" processes, does that mean that it comes from nature and is therefore "natural"? Fundamentally speaking, humans are no different from the vulture that breaks an egg with a stone, or a chimpanzee that collects termites with sticks. Humans creating plastics out of petrochemicals is no more "artificial" from any animal creating waste out food, or descendants out of sperm and egg. So I argue that "artificial" and "natural" are two terms that are too confusingly vague and poorly applied to be considered clearly separate concepts. I ask you to please see if you can give me the answers to my questions." So, please don't be a Warren181: Debate for real!
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial", Round Two!

"The definitions of both terms say no, but from different perspectives, one can classify the same thing into both categories."Yes you can classify the same thing into both categories, but not with the same perspective. That's the crux of the issue. You are arguing that it is impossible for there to be a clear defined boundary between artificial and natural. My whole debate is that it is possible to see a clear defined boundary depending on your perspective. I'm glad you concede your point on the issue and I urge anyone voting to read through all of the previous submissions and arguments in order to realize this. Thanks for debating with me SoloNo1! :)
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial", Round Two!

You say that different perspectives can change whether or not the boundary between natural and artificial. However, the fact remains that many terms, such as those terms that I have already described, can be sorted into one group or another. The only variation in perspective is that from different perspectives, things such as plastics or human children can be classified as either aritificial or natural. No difference in perspective can change the fact that these things are too ambiguous to be classified into only one of these categories which, though their definitions exclude one another, stil overlap to the point of completely blurring the boundary between them. Can something be both natural and artificial? The definitions of both terms say no, but from different perspectives, one can classify the same thing into both categories.
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial", Round Two!

So you concede that there is a boundary. Your only consolation is that the boundary isn't clear. Well what exactly is the difference between clear and vague? A white cloud can seem sharply divided from the blue sky from our perspective here on the ground, yet if we were to zoom up to the cloud and try to establish where the boundary between the cloud and sky actually lies, we would not be able to do it. The seemingly sharp boundary would give way to a fuzzy and vague continuum in which the cloud gradually thins out. Even the densest pieces of matter lack clear-cut edges when viewed from the molecular or sub-atomic perspective. This illustrates the more general truth that the boundaries and contrasts we perceive directly in the world are appearances only. They are entities which only exist to an observer with a particular kind of perspective. From one kind of perspective, there is a clear defined boundary between natural and artificial. From another perspective, there is not. This is the utility of language and the essence of the human experience. You are wrong to decide that there is absolutely no perspective that can be taken where a person would see a definite boundary between artificial and natural. I gave an example of finding pliers in the woods. Another example would be a painting of a mountain and the mountain itself. The painting is artificial (art) and the mountain is natural. When you take a different perspective then sure you can see that the painting and the human is a part of nature too, but this does not nullify the existence of the other perspective.
giving animals the same rights as humans

Hope this will be a healthy debate. And good luck. From analyzing your argument I have obtained these following arguments 1. Humans have the right to kill animals, however not kill humans (for 'minimal damage'), and such is morally wrong, "arrogant and sick', 2. Animals are kind and rational beings. therefore we should give them the same rights as humans as it would protect them from murder, abuse and unfair treatment. 3. these rights would deter humans from abuse as they would be charged with the same crime as if were a human I will now rebut your argument and disprove your premises. 1. Humans are only permitted to execute humans after fair reason is provided. Such is their danger to society and likely hood of future occurrence. This would also apply to animals. An animal bite is not equivalent to a punch from a human, and nor are they always put down for such. "Animals" entails a large range of species, many of which would inflict much, much greater damage then humans are capable of in a punch. However statistics prove that dogs who have bitten are likely to repeat such action again. This likely hood of occurrence is a danger to the 'peace' in our society and so thus, like particular criminals should be acted on accordingly. 2. Animals are not all 'kind and rational beings'. The broader definition of 'animals' includes many species, for example ants. Ants do not have either the level of intelligence or consciousness of humans, limiting their capacity to feel pain. And so they should not be treated with the same carefulness. Additionally, avoiding animals, especially those with high sentient emotion does not require 'human rights'. Animal rights already legislated in Australia protects animals from all harmful proceedings, HOWEVER does not reward them other privileges as humans. ( (for further reference ) http://kb.rspca.org.au... ) 3. Research has concluded that humans who commonly abuse animals also do so to humans. Therefore the penalty for abusing humans is not a deterrent. My rebuttal does not promote the assault of animals, however penalizes such. Your flaw in reasoning stated that for animals to not be abused they must have equal rights as humans.
giving animals the same rights as humans

animals are living beings who are able to feel pain, have emotions, and make decisions just as humans. If someone murders a person they can get a life sentence or even the death penalty. if someone kills an animal without reason their life was not in danger the worst they face is a couple years in jail. if someone decided to own a bunch of humans keep them in poor conditions and then slaughter them they would undoubtedly face serious criminal charges while it is legal to do the same thing to animals. on the other side of this animals who bite a human can be forced to be put to death. this is equivalent to giving someone the death penalty for punching someone. both the human and the animal can be considered dangerous to society however society allows the human to continue living among society. keep in mind that the animal may have even been provoked to do this either from an abusive past trigger or the human being violent with the animal. thinking that this is right is outright arrogant and sick in no way was that system created from a kind and rational being. If we gave animals the same legal rights as humans this animal injustice would be put to an end they would be protected from murder, abuse, and unfair treatment. It would also deter people from a tendency to take out their violence on animals as they could face the same charges as if it were a human. in the end who in their right mind would think that it's ok to treat animals cruely there is no reason that animals need to be killed or abused so why wouldn't you want to stop that from happening to them?
giving animals the same rights as humans

Criminal justice systems are not always accurate. Numerous cases are reported of victims being convicted to death, or life in prison. The right to such does not ensure it will be acted on. Particularly dogs who have committed an assault on persons are a risk to society and removing the animal from area will not ensure another attack will be avoided. Humans convicted of longer sentences is not correlated with the act of being committed again. Allowing convicted persons the ability to act sooner then later is not of effect by it actually happening. It will happen. Sooner or later. Additionally the Human Declaration of Human Rights provides some great articles that would benefit Animals. However the question at point: Giving Animals The Same Rights As Humans This includes all rights not a selected few. If the question was to select a few rights, the conditions would have already been met due to Animal protection Acts. However this is not the question, every right must be equal and by such they would be rewarded the right to education, the right to marriage and the right to vote. Such rights, as you admitted would not be apply-able to animals and so - Animals should not be given the same rights as humans. Your argument continued the fallacy of Strawman. You did not address the question making it an easier question to attack. Animals should not be given all the rights of humans.
The Dallas Cowboys Should Part Ways With Coach Garrett.

Just to correct my opponent's spelling; *either. My opponent saying that the Cowboy's head coach, Jason Garret is not the problem is a false statement. If we take a closer look at things, Garret is the whole problem. Let's evaluate Romo's playing; 1. Romo's No Huddle Is Excellent. Whenever Romo is doing his own thing and does not listen to Coach Garret, Romo does excellent. An example of this is against the Falcons last Sunday night. Late 4th Quarter, Romo threw to Kevin Ogletree in the back of the endzone. Garret hadn't called one thing (I do believe) in that drive. 2. The game against the Ravens. The clock was running down, Dallas had one more time out and decided not to use it until the final 3 - 4 seconds. This gave Dan Bailey, kicker for Dallas, time to get ready. Bailey had missed the kick. This can be blamed on Garret for not calling a timeout once the receiver had caught the ball and got tackled and giving Dan Bailey more prep-time for a game-winning field goal kick against the Ravens. 3. Last Season Against Arizona. Garret called a timeout once Dan Bailey kicked a game-winning field goal kick. Garret had iced his own kicker. Bailey misses it next time out. My opponent also stated that it might be Jerry Jones fault. Since the retirement of Tom Landry, Jerry Jones became the proud owner of the Cowboy's organization. Think of all of the coaches he has hired; 1. Jimmy Johnson - 2 Super Bowl Rings. (Retired Early). 2. Barry Switzer - 1 Super Bowl Ring. (Fired). 3. Bill Parcells - Playoff Appearance. 4. Wade Phillips - Fired. Went to Houston - Top 3 Defense. 5. Jason Garret - Probably Going To Get Fired. Garret's record is 16-16 as of right now. Garret is not the answer for the Cowboy's organization. Jerry Jones has hired brilliant coaches over the years. Garret, though, is a dud.
The Dallas Cowboys Should Part Ways With Coach Garrett.

The Cowboys have been a wild card in the NFL. You never know if they are going to win or lose. Before I Continue, let's go over some rules. 1. No Spamming. 2. No Trolling. 3. Have Fun At All Times! Though the Cowboys have won three games this season, Garrett is on the Hot Seat for a reason - He Can't Win Dallas any games.
The war in China is essential

Thank you for starting this wonderful debate. 1. The war in China exists. "The war in china is completely ridiculous." By calling it ridiculous, my opponent concedes that it exists. 2. Anything that exists is essential. Essential - 1. of, relating to, or constituting essence (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Essence - 2. something that exists (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) 3. The war in China is essential. (Transitive property)
The war in China is essential

The war in china is completely ridiculous. The U. S. needs to pull out their troops from Nanjing. If we don't then it could result in World War II part B! Just last year there was a similar conflict between Mesopitamia and Prussia. It resulted in ethnic cleansing of all the Aryians. According to prophecy, Kurt Vonnegut was born in blood to a german english dictionary. Therefore Neil Patrick Harris has the sorcerer's stone.
The war in China is essential

Um... 1. The war in China exists. 2. Anything that exists is essential. 3. The war in China is essential. All of my opponent's arguments are irrelevant to the point, because he never attempted to disprove my definitions, and all of his arguments were about how we shouldn't be part of the war in China, which is irrelevant. After that last round, I'm not even going to thank you.
The Christian God is Omniscient and Omnibenevolent II

He agrees that God can be "vengeful and [rain] his wrath down upon our world". Though you should technically count this as a concession of God's wickedness, this debate ought to revolve on the much more interesting philosophical arguments. RE: God's Inability Pro states that a cocktail of omniscience and omnibenevolence is only a problem if a shot of omnipotence is added to the mix. He argues that the Christian God does not have the ability to interact with out world. This is a completely incorrect statement. Apart from creating the world itself, appearing to the wandering Jews, impregnating Mary and giving Moses his ninja powers, the Christian God caused the Great Flood. Remember all of these things, but particularly the Flood. It will come into play later on. RE: Hell Pro agrees that God is omniscient and omnibenevolent. This means that he knows exactly who is going to Hell. He has the ability to communicate with us and interact with the world. Yet people still go to Hell. He then advocates for another kind of Hell. I would like him to present scriptural evidence that such a Hell exists. If there is no basis in scripture, such a Hell would be a human construct, and therefore nonexistent. RE: Idea of Time Pro says that because God may be able to see time at all points past, present, and future, he can't affect the world because he cannot single out a time. However, remember the Great Flood and other examples I cited above. God obviously can interact with our world, nullifying this argument. Also, existing all throughout time strengthens my argument. Provided God knows the infinite future because he exists in it, he knows the results of his actions the moment he commits them, and if they are undesirable, he can change them. Furthermore, he's omniscient. He knows the future. Even if he did not exist outside of time, and experienced it linearly, he'd constantly know the best course of action. Judging from our world, he obviously hasn't taken it. RE: Free Will Pro then brings up the point of free will. He says that God gave us free will, and that anything bad we do with it is our own fault. There are two main problems with this argument. 1) If God is omniscient, he knew giving us free will would lead to numerous problems. He gave free will to us anyway, and in doing so, made us bound to sin. 2) If God still wished to give us free will, he has done it inefficiently. God could have easily made rational beings that would only do good and cause no evil. Given the fact that God knew his options but chose the lesser, he is not all loving. I look forward to your arguments =).
The Christian God is Omniscient and Omnibenevolent II

I'd like to get some legitimate arguing done. The resolution is fairly clear, please don't try something wacky using obscure definitions. This is a rare debate in which both debaters have a burden of proof. It is possible for Pro to prove his/her side, and it is possible for me to prove my side. Please don't try and shift the burden. By accepting this debate, you accept half of the BOP. I shall show that it is impossible for the Christian God to be omniscient and omnibenevolent at the same time. First, numerous Bible verses point to his immorality. In these lines, God authorizes and commits slaughter. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 - "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." 1 Sam 15:2a, 3 - "Thus saith the LORD of hosts... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a**(donkey)." 1 Sam 6:19 - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." Even if we don't look to the above passages, it is impossible for God to be omniscient and omnibenevolent given his past actions. Let us assume that God is omnisicient. If God has unlimited knowledge, he knows exactly what humans are going to do before they do it. He knew Eve would eat the Fruit before she did. He knew he would have to flood the earth before humans grew wicked. He knows that every murderer would kill someone before they even act. Because he is omniscient, he knew all this before he even created Creation itself. Here we have a problem. If God knew of every single sin that humans would commit even before he created humans, why create us in the first place? By creating humans, knowing exactly who would be damned, God effectively damned those people. Hell is described as the ultimate torture and punishment. God knew who would have to suffer hell, but created those people anyway - sending them to eternal damnation. With that, I'll open the floor out for Pro.
legoat james would be a better president than hillary clinton

Ladies and gentlemen, Pro would have you believe that LeBron (aka "LeGOAT") James can please his woman while Hillary Clinton is unable to do so. Pro would also have you believe that Bill Clinton's inability to remain loyal and honest to his wife is somehow indicative of her ability to please and serve both a nation and a lover of hers, in general. I will hereby explain why not only is Pro's angle false but if anything it supports the Con view on this matter. Hillary Clinton is married to, kindly put, a simple-minded barbarian whom not only was incapable of controlling his urges but regardless of his political savvy, was unable to keep a lid on his adultery. Hillary Clinton had the power to not only divorce him, which would have been both admired by the heavily feminist Democratic fan club but totally understood by any non-feminist who has any concept of what marriage and loyalty are. Instead of this impulsive, passionate move, Mrs. Clinton had the presence of mind to keep the marriage going. This displayed not only forgiveness and strength of character but pragmatically left her with all the power in the relationship from that point on. Someone so strategic and capable even at traumatic times of heartbreak makes a fantastic leader who knows how to be assertive without being aggressive and is kind enough to forgive people for mishaps but is very capable of letting them know they did wrong despite this forgiving nature. LeBron James, on the other hand, has never once shown strength of character nor forgiving nature in the slightest. He has displayed arrogance and greed his entire career, selling himself out to filthy rich corporations[http://www.forbes.com...] such as Nike (heavy user of sweatshops who only bothered slowing it down once finally caught [http://www.businessinsider.com...]), Dr. Dre Beats (as if the music you listen to makes you a better player), Dunkin' Donuts (great sports role model, really fantastic) and a variety of others. Aside from character, LeBron James is also not capable of leading a nation. His role has always been as a member of a team run by a superior; his coach. The President is essentially a super-coach in relative terms and Mr. James has never once been in this role nor has he shown any capability of fulfilling it. There's already been a half-black president to the hype over race is pretty much done and dusted. Mrs. Clinton would be the first female president and gender is still a glass ceiling worth breaking in politics. A horny husband is not proof of one's own sexual capabilities. Mrs. Clinton did, after all, successfully keep him loyal to her from that point on displaying the ability to learn from errors and fix her bootylicious ways. Learning from mistakes is something that Obama and George Bush never quite got their heads around and something USA really does need.
Lady Jane Grey should have been allowed to rule England as Queen instead of Mary.

Final Rebuttals:My opponent asserts: 'Given that he had a regency in place he was legally not able to make a law of this sort without the consent of his advisers. ' During his reign, Edward VI had two 'advisers' or 'protectorates. ' One was the Duke of Somerset and the other, after the downfall of the Duke of Somerset, was the Earl of Warwick (later the Duke of Northumberland), the man that my opponent states: 'had forced the young King to write this law and he ignored the regent entirely. ' Now, there is no proof that the young King was entirely manipulated by the Duke of Northumberland. In fact, David Starkey states in his book, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship, that: 'Edward himself opposed Mary's succession, not only on religious grounds but also on those of legitimacy and male inheritance, which also applied to Elizabeth. 'It is true that Elizabeth I and Mary I were still not considered legitimate. The various succession acts had declared them illegitimate and restored them to the succession, but had never actually declared them legitimate.