BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US Congress should pass a bill that limits discrimination in us voting polls.

You're welcome to criticize me all you want, call me arrogant, call my figures BS. It's a classic tactic used by the losing party- When all else fails, attack the debater instead of the topic. 1- my 11% is not BS. I took the numbers from the ACLU, so unless you think they are also BS'ing, you can accept the figures for what they are- https://www.aclu.org.... 2- I am not attacking the personal problems the woman in your scenario has. What I am suggesting is that unless she is a criminal (for not paying taxes which would make her ineligible to vote anyway), then she should be able to produce something that proves she is who she claims. When I got married I needed photo ID. Every job I've had has required photo ID. She has every right to vote but instead of asking the citizens at large to get her to the voting booth, I'm suggesting that she take some responsibility for herself. Please don't mistake my desire for responsible voters/Americans as arrogance. I would like my children to grow up in a US better than the one in the movie Idioracy - http://www.imdb.com... 3- Regarding the opportunity, I believe I made my argument for that and you missed/ignored it. I suggested states provide the ID free of cost as well as set up funds for people that may need assistance. I also suggested mandatory time off to get said ID. 4- You cite a quote about democracy. Did I miss the part where the people of Texas didn't vote (free of ID) for the people in office? You suggest the Federal Government take over and tell the states how to run things. That is the opposite of a democracy. Do you know why Republicans and Tea Party-ers call Obama a fascist? It's because of his long reach into states rights and his take over of a free, open market. 5- I have offered suggestions in my previous rounds as to how to make the new laws easier and fair for people that this would have an effect on. You have ignored such suggestions and have offered nothing in return.
The US Congress should pass a bill that limits discrimination in us voting polls.

Ok, again the fact your attacking this woman shows how arrogant you are. You attack her personal problems instead of addressing her right to vote. So since you didn't refute the opportunity cost i'm displaying I win this point. you go on to say only 11% of Americans don't have voter ID? According to the Washington Times "only 66 percent of women have access to a valid document."that means 33% of women dont have valid ID. They continue "The law may also place a voting barrier for the transgender community, where as many as 41 percent of individuals have not updated their driver"s license, 74 percent do not possess an updated passport, and 27 percent have no identity documents reflecting their current gender..." your 11% is BS. I would like reference a quote by Charles Bukowski "The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting." Fortunately for us we live in a democracy and every vote counts, if this law stops even 1 voter from voting we are discriminating against them, and that's not right. a government is meant to protect the essential rights of their people and voting is one of them. Thank you for the rounds :)
The US Congress should pass a bill that limits discrimination in us voting polls.

Nobody is asking anyone to produce 5 IDs. All a person has to do is produce 1 of 5; whether it be a drivers license, passport, non-driver ID, military ID or handgun license is irrelevant. All they need is ONE of the above. In the event a person cannot come up with 1 acceptable form of ID, they then have the option of obtaining an election ID certificate which does require the applicant to have a birth certificate. With millions of illegal aliens in the country and many more coming in everyday, the time has come for people to prove that they have voting rights. I'm sorry, but if you cannot prove that you have a legal right to vote, then you don't vote. Plain and simple. Now, about the 25 year old mother of 3 that you reference. Is she working under the table and not paying taxes? This is the only scenario I can think of where she wouldn't have had to provide ID to an employer for tax purposes. Did she receive medical care when she had her 3 children? How about her marriage and subsequent divorce? She never had to prove who she was until voting day? And to your claim that "the majority of Americans must suffer to get [an ID]" is preposterous! Show me some data to back that one up. I just looked it up and I am surprised to find that 11% of Americans don't have proper ID. That's a shame but I'm sure many have had ample time to procure appropriate identification and failed to do so. We no longer live in an age where we know the people in our communities. A signature and an electric bill won't cut it as proof of voting rights any longer. With voting comes responsibility. Let's be responsible and make sure the people electing our nations leaders are supposed to be in the voting booth. I will agree with you that throwing this law into action on short notice is wrong. The appropriate thing to do would be to give people enough time -a year or 2- before enacting the law. During this time funds could also be set aside for people that cannot afford the cost involved.
The US Congress should pass a bill that limits discrimination in us voting polls.

I'm so glad you jumped on this, thanks. Ok just to start, I will address states taking charge: States are likely/will to abuse the fact that they can pass voting laws. Texas is a clear example, they have tried several time, the most recent this past summer, to pass laws that the federal government deemed discriminatory, whether it be towards women of races (http://www.theguardian.com...), the voter id laws are a clear example of this. Its ridiculous to request 5 ids, and if you are one of those who do not vote normally you now must come up with 5 ids that are recognized by state, in many large cities people don't drive, they walk. They don't invest in a licence, and if you are a poorer family this means your giving up a days wages to go to a dmv, wait in line, and lose income. this income that many Americans live on from paycheck to paycheck. Secondly I would like to quote and then refute you: "The article also mentions that some people may have to go up to 250 miles to obtain their voter ID certificate. I would argue that if they cared enough for their vote, they would gladly make the trek. That said, yes, that may be difficult for the destitute. What if the state had a "travelling Department of Public Safety Office" that came to your county? Would it still be discriminatory? What if the state made it mandatory to give time off to those that need to obtain such a voter ID?" Your saying, that if I am a 25 year old woman who works to the bone so I can feed my 3 kids because my husband left me, that I should have to give up a days wages and spend money driving 250 miles to get ID? Thats outrageous and shows how privileged you are. you have the importunity to do what the majority of Americans must suffer to get. I would like to add the fact that a federal government can co-exist with a state. Federal government is not being forced to spear head it alone in the topic, they merely must pass a bill regulating discriminatory action.
The US Congress should pass a bill that limits discrimination in us voting polls.

I'll take the bait. I don't see this as discrimination and the Federal government should leave it up to the state. Your source is from over a year ago so I'd be interested to see how it panned out. In the article from the NY Times, it states that voters have to show up with ONE of five forms of acceptable ID. I don't see how this can be discriminatory. If you can't prove who you are when given 5 chances, odds may be that you are trying to be deceitful. IF, you don't have one of the five acceptable forms of ID, you have another shot by getting a voter ID certificate. In this case you will have to provide your birth certificate. ONLY if you don't have said birth certificate would you have to obtain one from the records office (at a cost of $22 "in some cases"). Now, you have been given 6 chances to prove you are who you say you are and that you are eligible to vote in a certain election. The people calling discrimination site that this would be difficult for the poor and indignant. If the state waived the $22 fee for a new birth certificate, would this still be discriminatory? The article also mentions that some people may have to go up to 250 miles to obtain their voter ID certificate. I would argue that if they cared enough for their vote, they would gladly make the trek. That said, yes, that may be difficult for the destitute. What if the state had a "travelling Department of Public Safety Office" that came to your county? Would it still be discriminatory? What if the state made it mandatory to give time off to those that need to obtain such a voter ID? These don't seem like Federal issues to me. Also, I challenge your claim that, " these laws allowed polls to turn down any voter even if the id was good, all they needed was a shred of doubt". I did not see that in your source article and seems to be conjecture. Now, let's discuss the rights of the majority of the population. I am a registered voter and vote in every election. I think it's important and it's my right. If it could be proven that an election was swayed by voter fraud and the state could have done something about it, I would be furious. Imagine the outrage that would ensue if the state did try to do something about it but the Federal government put a stop to it.
The US Congress should pass a bill that limits discrimination in us voting polls.

There should never be a situation in which Congress avoids harming discrimination, saying we shouldn't pass a bill working for equality is the equivalent of saying people rights do not need protecting. One way this can be see is in Texas, as soon as the federal government loosened their grip on how voting poll standards should be addressed Texas began imposing Voter id laws. these laws allowed polls to turn down any voter even if the id was good, all they needed was a shred of doubt. The federal government has stated that they will take action and its a discriminatory process. SRC: -http://www.nytimes.com...
There is too much evil in the world for the traditional christian god to exist

The best possible reason for the existence of Evil is that it is for a purpose. For example, Irenaeus believed that the existence of evil was to allow humans to develop into the likeness of God, and to allow them to reach heaven. This can also be seen in evils present today. For example, the World Wars have taught countries to communicate, and to work together to prevent future wars, which has resulted in a better world. However, when we look at the volume of evil in these situations, we can see that the amount of evil overwhelms the amount of God that comes from this Evil. Using the same example as before, surely there was a way of teaching us to avoid war that didn't result in abhorrent levels of pain and suffering which were present in the world wars. If God is omnipotent and omni-benevolent, he would both want to achieve his goal with minimal evil, and be able to do it. Note that this doesn't mean he would violate our free will to teach us this, but he would be able to find a way which caused less evil. Again, if we look at the volume of evil in the natural world, we see that the amount of evil overcomes any purpose to the evil. For example, the female digger wasp's sting paralyses its prey, allowing her larvae to feast on it whilst it is still living. Here we see a purpose - the wasps must have food to survive - but the amount of evil made in this act is completely unproportional to the purpose. This effect is amplified across the whole of the animal kingdom, giving a far larger amount of evil than the purpose requires, a cycle that John Stuart Mill described a "designedly imperfect work". This again contradicts a perfect God, who would both be able to and want to create a proportional system which balance the evil with the outcome.
There is too much evil in the world for the traditional christian god to exist

You're making me blush. "I don't believe there is any contradiction in my statement that a necessary evil can be unnecessarily voluminous, nor is it a synonym for gratuitous evil. " I honestly think you're unnecessarily confusing the voters. I'm sorry I should have just swapped the word gratuitous evil with voluminous earlier. Since I'm responding to pro than, I'm obviously using the word gratuitous in a way that reflects what he's talking about. now let me deal with the contradiction. Since God dictates the amount of evil that is in the world, any voluminous necessary evil is in fact unnecessary from a zoomed out perspective. Saying that the necessary evil is unnecessarily voluminous, is just a confusing way of saying " there is more evil than necessary". No matter what way you word it, you have still failed to offer convincing evidence of this. " Surely even one less death would reduce the amount of evil created. " There is simply no way of knowing if one death would have been a net gain or net loss of total evil in the world. Given what I discussed earlier with God's infinite time horizon and the butterfly effect, it seems that there is no way of ever knowing what if anything can be considered unnecessarily voluminous evil. "In terms of the female digger wasp, I guess that it was a mistake on my part to quote anything of Dawkins at all. If I ever get the chance, I will take him up on that. " I've read a bunch of his books as well. He's pretty good at science, not so good at philosophy. Conclusion 'The Problem of Evil' argument doesn't work as a defeater of the Christian Omni-God. From a personal perspective it can appear there is too much evil in this world, but that's a biased belief based on the fact that it sux to experience and see evil. when you zoom out and attempt to look at this from God's perspective, every ounce of pain can be justified, no matter how horrendous it appears in our tiny timeframe. Thank you vintinthethird for having this debate with me.
There is too much evil in the world for the traditional christian god to exist

I don't believe there is any contradiction in my statement that a necessary evil can be unnecessarily voluminous, nor is it a synonym for gratuitous evil. Gratuitous evil is a evil without a purpose. The evil I am describing serves a specific purpose in God's plan (when we start with a presumption of God). For example, the mass killing in the two world wars. This has served a purpose, as it has allowed peace-keeping organisations like the UN to be set up, and other various benefits. This, therefore, is not a gratuitous evil, as it serves a purpose, potentially from God. However, the amount of evil caused in this war was far in excess of the required amount of evil, throwing into doubt the qualities of God. Surely even one less death would reduce the amount of evil created. Do you believe that the effects of the world wars would not have come to fruition if one less human had died? This clearly points to the non-existence of an Omni-God, for reasons I described earlier. In terms of the female digger wasp, I guess that it was a mistake on my part to quote anything of Dawkins at all. If I ever get the chance, I will take him up on that. Nevertheless, the utter failure of that one example doesn't refute the fact that many animals which do have nociceptors are killed in ways unbegetting of the dignity they deserve. Certainly, if any abattoir employed these methods they would be facing a very big lawsuit. To conclude, although all evil can be directed towards a specific goal, the way this goal is completed is unfit for a Omni-God. Therefore the Omni-God cannot exist.
There is too much evil in the world for the traditional christian god to exist

"I would reject the notion that the basis of my argument is that gratuitous evil exists; instead it is focusing on the effectiveness of which the necessary evil is deployed." My opponent contradicts himself in his last set of arguments a few times and doesn't address my key points. In the above line my opponent says all evil is necessary. This statement completely destroys his argument. If all evil is necessary than evil doesn't act as a defeater argument against the existence of God. If all evil is necessary as my opponent suggests in this sentence, than how does "too much" evil exist? Well, if it's all necessary than of course the right amount of evil exists. "But then, if we start to look at the ways this necessary evil is conducted in this world, we see that the amount of evil that goes into this action is unnecessarily voluminous" "Unnecessarily voluminous evil" is a synonym for the words "gratuitous evil". This sentence also contradicts it's self by calling necessary evil, unnecessarily voluminous. I'm not sure why my opponent is trying to make his argument so hard to nail down. His argument is exactly what I stated before. He is merely writing in a confusing way and swapping out my words for synonyms. Here is his argument in my words again. Which is much easier to understand and better stated than the way he stated the argument. P1. If an Omni-God exists, Gratuitous evil doesn't exist. P2. Gratuitous evil exists. C. God doesn't exist. " Taking the nature example again, it is understandable (just) that an animal must kill to survive. It would be perfectly possible for an omni-god to create a system in nature in which each animal is treated with the respect and love that would be characteristic of an omni-benevolent God. But we do not observe this. Instead, what we see goes far beyond that remit, as seen in the example of the digger wasp." Now to address my opponent's argument on the gratuitous pain a digger wasp feels when being eaten alive. Here is it being mentioned by my opponent in round 2. "Again, if we look at the volume of evil in the natural world, we see that the amount of evil overcomes any purpose to the evil. For example, the female digger wasp's sting paralyses its prey, allowing her larvae to feast on it whilst it is still living. Here we see a purpose - the wasps must have food to survive - but the amount of evil made in this act is completely unproportional to the purpose." This is a bad example. I won't bog anyone down with the technical details, but there is no evidence insects feel pain. Most if not all insects, probably don't have the capacity to feel pain. Nociceptors are something necessary to feel pain and most insects simply don't possess them. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... As far as we can tell, God has spared insects from ever having to feel pain. My opponent has yet to give any examples of gratuitous evil and he will not be capable of doing so, anytime soon. The problem of evil argument doesn't work as a defeater of the Christian Omni-God.
There is too much evil in the world for the traditional christian god to exist

I would reject the notion that the basis of my argument is that gratuitous evil exists; instead it is focusing on the effectiveness of which the necessary evil is deployed. Let's start by assuming belief in the Christian omni-god, and that some evils are needed in our world. For example, some animals must kill to eat, and humans must commit sinful mistakes to learn and grow. Also, for any evil that seems to have no purpose, it can be said that we are just unable to see the effect, what with our short-lived lives. But then, if we start to look at the ways this necessary evil is conducted in this world, we see that the amount of evil that goes into this action is unnecessarily voluminous. Taking the nature example again, it is understandable (just) that an animal must kill to survive. It would be perfectly possible for an omni-god to create a system in nature in which each animal is treated with the respect and love that would be characteristic of an omni-benevolent God. But we do not observe this. Instead, what we see goes far beyond that remit, as seen in the example of the digger wasp. This shows us (assuming that God designed the world) that there is a imperfection in God's creation - there is excess evil which is not needed. This isn't the gratuitous evil that you were describing as this evil has a purpose. However, as there are clearly methods which would serve the same purpose, whilst reducing the amount of evil needed to fulfil that purpose, the nature of God is in doubt. The only explanations for this excess evil is that God is not Omni-potent (and so is unable to create the perfect system in nature), God is not Omni-benevolent (as he doesn't feel the need to reduce the amount of evil) or God does not exist. Any of these 3 answers contradict the Christian Omni-God, and so we must conclude that this Omni-God cannot exist.
There is too much evil in the world for the traditional christian god to exist

This is one of those subjects I've been wanting to touch on for a while. I'm going to leave my first round just for opening arguments. I wouldn't be surprised if my opening argument acts as a effective rebuttals for. Pro's contentions. My argument is directly inspired by modern theologians, such as Plantiga, William Lane Craig etc. . Don't be shocked if the arguments look familiar to theirs. These are arguments directly from memory. The Problem of Evil The problem of Evil is an argument that works as a defeator for the Omni-God (all powerful, all knowing, all loving). My opponent has specified specifically the Christian Omni-God. If the specific argument entitled 'Problem of Evil' doesn't work as a defeator for the Christian Omni-God than he should lose this debate. Here is what the Problem of Evil argument looks like summed up. The problem of evil isn't really about showing all forms of evil. If evil is made up for with a greater amount of good than it is justified. The argument against an all loving God is an argument that attempts to show gratuitous evil. P1. If an Omni-God exists, Gratuitous evil doesn't exist. P2. Gratuitous evil exists. C. God doesn't exist. The problem with this argument is that it's impossible to prove gratuitous evil. Make no mistake the burden of proof is on pro. All I have to do is expose the flaws in his argument. Which I undoubtedly will. The Butterfly Effect Have you seen The Butterfly Effect with Ashton Kutcher? Ashton Kutcher would repeatedly go into the past and try to stop different evils. Each evil he removed had disasterous effects. God isn't about to make the same mistakes. God's time horizon is extremely long. Too long for our puny minds to fathom. He sees all events future and present. Something that you view as gratuitous evil may very well be something that has disasterous ripple effects millions of years in the future, if God steps in and alters it. Unlike Ashton Kutcher, God doesn't intend to let his creations fall victim to the Butterfly Effect. Desire for Worship The Christian Omni-God desires worship and glory. New Living Translation Romans 11:36 "For everything comes from him and exists by his power and is intended for his glory. All glory to him forever! Amen. " Part of the reason that evil was created, was to be able to appreciate God's glory. How could we ever know God and appreciate him fully unless we fall from his grace first. It's like the saying goes. "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" If we're perfect creations, than we will never know God's true capacity for love. Of course he would love a perfect being, but he loves us despite our imperfections. It's a good thing that God didn't create a perfect world with perfect inhabitants. If he had we'd be spared from ever truly understanding how deep his love flows. Conclusion It is impossible to show any sort of gratuitous evil because we can't see millions of years into the future. Pro has his work cut out for him. I leave the floor to pro, for his attempt to show gratuitous evil occurs. My rebuttals are coming in round 3.