BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I believe God exists, So the story of the Christ is un-necessary

I thank johnlubba for hosting this debate. Just to clarify, I interpret that this discussion does not discriminate between religions. It assumes that God exists, and that a figure LIKE Christ, as embodied in scripture like the gospels, is unnecessary. While God exists, His existence is undefined, and indeed undefinable. The Bible is not held to be definitive truth in this context.I will take the opposite position, that a figure LIKE Christ is necessary to stand alongside God.Unfortunately I disagree that points should be only for convincing argument, because I have participated in debates where grammar became such an issue that I simply could not ascertain my opponent's logic. Proper grammar and sentence flow adds a lot more to a debate than just form and formality.Although it is not stipulated in round #1, I will give my opponent the lead and just accept this round. I will also ask that round #5 be reserved only for closing statements, with no new arguments and/or citations presented.Thanks again, and good luck. Accept.
I believe God exists, So the story of the Christ is un-necessary

This debate is not set out to prove the existence of God, it is to be assumed that God exists with infinite attributes, once agreed upon it is my opponents burden of proof to convince me why we have to also accept a human ( Christ ) alongside God, as God, and having the glory and power of God. In other words, we can assume the universe was manifested by a creator, using simple logic such as the fine tuning argument, this is not putting the fine tuning argument in the dock, but it is to be accepted as true. once agreed that the universe was indeed created by a very highly intelligent source, God, Then it is my opponents duty to show me why we should necessarily attach the Christ to this awesome power of God. Also all points should be given for most convincing argument only, I am not as good as most debaters on here and could be simply voted out just for my bad grammar skills. I look forward to a worthy opponent and will try to make this an interesting debate. Many Thanks
If a tree falls down, and no one hears it...

===Indirect Measurement=== First, I take issue with my opponent’s statement that “red light is not red, if no being sees it as such.” Red light is defined as any photon emitted with a wavelength from 620-750 nanometers. [1] Even if no "being" senses the light, the wavelength, and thereby the color, of the light can still be known by observing the effects it has on materials, such as the photoelectric effect, or by physically measuring the wavelength of the light using a frequency-sensitive photodiode. ===Non-Universal Sensations=== A semiotic theory called umwelt essentially states that due to the differing ways animals process information, the sensations they feel about their environments will be drastically different. Applying this argument now to sound, rather than to light, people with synesthesia associated with their sense of hearing will interpret sound differently than other human beings. Obviously, however, both other animals and synesthetics react to sound, thus "hear" it, but the way they interpret sound is unique to the animal or individual. Should the English language, therefore, develop thousands of definitions of sound, each matching the interpretation of a new individual? It is here that my opponent’s argument is flawed: if one is to include sensation in the definition of sound, there can be no universal definition of sound. The only truly universal definition of sound is a set of mechanical vibrations traveling through an elastic medium. This debate has a shared burden of proof. Pro has submitted a definition of sound which can be considered universal in nature, while the only “universal” definition Con can submit is “The set of all possible sensations triggered by vibration.” Along this line of logic, considering the possible ways creatures may interpret sound, sound can be defined more succinctly as “anything”. Vote Pro. ===References=== [1] http://www2.chemistry.msu.edu...
If a tree falls down, and no one hears it...

The definition of "sound" is the subject of this debate, and thus must be argued.Pro's distinction between a sound "heard" and sound "made" is incorrect. This is the resolution he would prefer: "If a tree falls down and no one hears it, did anyone hear it?". Obviously not. What makes this famous question debatable is the difference between a a physical thing and its perceived manifestation, and whether that thing has a full identity if it never reaches perception. In other words, is a sound really a sound if it is never perceived as such? My opponent's analogy about atomic decay and the emission of light falls under the same vain. Light is consciously interpreted in the form of colors, and thus has significance beyond its photonic physical manifestation. Red is not red, if no being sees it as such,...it is merely a light wave. The argument here is that light has a non-physical identity called "color"....and therefore cannot be fully described with a purely physical description. Suppose that "red" is defined as: The electromagnetic wave with the longest wavelength and smallest frequency on the visible light spectrum. That really doesn't take into account the vibrant sensation of color that we consciously perceive, does it? Likewise, describing sound as a mechanical vibration does not take into account our conscious perception of a sound. A tree will certainly produce a sound wave if it falls,... however, with no being to perceive and interpret it as a sound, it lacks that essential quality that makes it even fathomable and recognizable as such. Thus, the unheard sound is not a sound at all, but a mechanical wave and nothing more. To my opponent's contention about animals: the term "no one" refers to anything with the ability to interpret sound.Conclusion: Creatures sense things when a physical catalyst causes a mental sensation. However, the physical catalyist is not, itself, the mental sensation. Therefore a mechanical vibration is not a sound if no one hears it.
If a tree falls down, and no one hears it...

To begin with, had my opponent wished to argue the definition of sound, he should have provided a definition in his original submission. As he failed to do so, by implication inviting me to add a definition, I will continue arguing the definition of sound which I provided, namely: "mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium,traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level." Furthermore, the way in which my opponent phrased the topic of the debate suggests this definition of sound. He chose to title the debate "If a tree falls down and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?", not "If a tree falls down and no one is there to hear it, is a sound heard?" My opponent offered no definition or clarification of his own on the definition of a sound, and gave no information to indicate that he was arguing the definition or metaphysics of a sound. The focus of this debate will therefore be on whether a falling tree emits a sound. Furthermore, I would challenge my opponent's differentiation between a sound and a sound wave. Let us consider, for the moment, a parallel analogy, only using light instead of sound. Anyone who has had some form of modern physics will know that when an electron decays in its energy level, it releases a photon to conserve energy and momentum. Simply because the photon is not observed or seen by a human being is not sufficient to say that said photon does not exist, as maintaining so would violate the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. Likewise, it is obviously not physically possible for a tree to fall to the ground without producing some form of mechanical vibration. Furthermore, my opponent did not mention any reference on non-human beings, such as animals, hearing the tree fall. Obviously, many animals also have some form of hearing, and this possible counterargument was not precluded in his original resolution. I would continue this argument, but it appears I am out of space.
If a tree falls down, and no one hears it...

Thank you for accepting, bencbartlett, and welcome to DDO. To start, I reject my opponent's definition of a sound. It is insufficient to describe a quale in purely physical terms, since it has significance beyond its physicality. What I mean is, a sound isn't just a mechanical vibration, but a perceived and mentally interpreted sensation. More accurately described by dualist Frank C. Jackson, the sensation of sound is "..[a certain feature] of the bodily sensations... which no amount of purely physical information includes."(http://instruct.westvalley.edu...) Red is not still red to one who is color blind...despite the fact that it is the same light wave. A flavorful pizza isn't actually flavorful on the palette of one without taste buds...despite the fact that the spices are still there. A sensation is a mentally processed experience caused by a physical catalyst, and cannot be accurately accounted for using only a physical description. Therefore, what my opponent describes is a sound wave,...not a sound. A conscious being must be present to interpret and sense the wave in order for it to be considered the latter. The conclusion follows, if a tree falls and no one hears it, it produced a sound wave, but made no sound.
If a tree falls down, and no one hears it...

I accept my opponent's challenge. As this round is purely for acceptance, I shall take the time to provide a few definitions, as my opponent has not provided these definitions.Sound: "mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium,traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331meters) per second at sea level." [1]Fall: "to drop or descend under the force of gravity, as to a lower place through loss or lack of support." [2]I look forward to an interesting, if not quirky, debate, and wish my opponent good luck. ===References===[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Create a Country

Criminal Justice I will agree with your point about crime being virtually nonexistent if people do not need anything because it is all provided for them. However, what about crimes of passion? What about the guy who killed the guy who stole his wife? Does he need psychological help too? I do not feel this motive for crime was addressed in your system. Furthermore, even though death may not deter criminals, as you described, it will still kill the criminals and we do not have to take care of them for the remainder of their meaningless lives. All in all, I would not support this criminal justice system, even if it eliminates ALL crime, because it also eliminates ALL freedom. Gun Control In America, many places with more guns have less crime. This is true for a vast majority of the nation. This is not true for all of it however. This is why Dixie will leave gun control up to the states, even though the federal government will support this. You seem to also believe that my policies will ensure mass unemployment which will encourage crime. This is an assumption on your part. FairTax What you have addressed regarding fairtax is all the misconceptions of it that prevent it from being passed. First, used items will not be taxed. This will encourage home ownership and used car sales as these items have already been possessed previously. Second, the item can only be taxed once and not along the stages of production. This will cause mass deflation because it lacks the taxes in place under income tax. Third, it is actually balanced. Before you assume that it will shift the tax burden to the poor, look into the prebates which are specifically designed to reimburse the people for the taxes they paid on necessities. In America, adoption of the fairtax will increase economic well being across the board, it will decrease unemployment, it will increase home sales, increase revenue by 352 Billion dollars, and ensure that all people pay less taxes in their lifetime than with income tax. (fairtax.org) (And economists came up with these statistics if you want to dispute the people who have far more credibility than you do) I will stop as these are the only points you addressed in R5. Vote for me!
Women should not feel offended when called 'babe' or 'baby'.

Contrary to popular belief there is no such thing as a feeling that should be felt.People say 'you shouldn't feel depressed because you're not starving' to someone who is literally slitting their wrists and crying themselves from insomnia to sleep every painful night. You cannot rationalize nor rank feelings. There is no objective way to prioritize which feelings are more important or appropriate and there never will be. If a woman doesn't like to be called babe and/or baby then you have no right to tell them that they should enjoy it. It is anyone's sovereign right to feel and think as they please without any restrictions placed upon them.
Women should not feel offended when called 'babe' or 'baby'.

Women should not feel offended when called 'babe' or 'baby', since it is not necessarily an insult. It is rather a compliment, to express admiration for the women, which in more often cases would be beautiful. It can boost her self-esteem. Also, many waitresses call men clients 'honey', since they have the right to do it, men should also have the right to call women 'babe'.
Obama is the best president EVER.....

http://www.scholastic.com... He may be a really good president, but I do not believe he is the best president EVER. For example John F. Kennedy has stopped the Soviet Union from starting a nuclear war, if JFK didn't do this Obama wouldn't have a country to be president for. Another great things that presidents have done is stop SLAVERY! Obama may have made health care more affordable, but he has never done in the president position anything that can top that. Finally one last thing that a president has done is Giving America Texas, California and other territory. That is why Obama is a good president, but not the best.
Obama is the best president EVER.....

He is for The People. Say what you will about Barack Obama, but unlike the many presidents who preceded him, he cares about what is best for the greater good. He truly does represent The People. His actions have always been motivated by a sincere desire to do what is best for the majority, even if it meant losing ground with the wealthy, influential or powerful minority. He is for one race -the human race. In just a few short years, Obama's professional achievements and continued demonstration of equality and integrity have done wonders for race relations. America has never been more unified as a people than it has been under the direct leadership of Barack Obama. Finally, the racial lines that have divided blacks and whites for decades seem to be narrowing. He is for a healthcare system that brings hope and healing to the hurting. Obama's healthcare plan has allowed uninsured Americans to reap the benefits of a universal healthcare system. A suffering child should never be turned away because his or her mother doesn't have health insurance. To deny medical assistance to people who desperately need it is barbaric. Obama's health care plan has placed America among the world's greatest superpowers who demonstrate care and compassion toward its constituents with healthcare that serves all.
Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible

Evidence will be from the old and new testament translation and reference must be sited. When definition cannot be defined by orthodox biblical theological terms it will be defined by dictonary. com. As Con my position is that roman catholicism is NOT in opposition to the Bible. As the word opposition is not defined by Pro, and not listed in orthodox biblical theological term dictionary. com has this definition of it: 1. to act against or provide resistance to; combat. 2. to stand in the way of; hinder; obstruct. 3. to set as an opponent or adversary. 4. to be hostile or adverse to, as in opinion: to oppose a resolution in a debate. 5. to set as an obstacle or hindrance. 6. to set against in some relation, especially as to demonstrate a comparison or contrast: to oppose advantages to disadvantages. 7. to use or take as being opposite or contrary. This causes a bit of a problem of choice. I will go with the #1 definition as it should be considered the most common, and does fit within the context. If Pro wishes to use a different defination please state it in R2, if no contention to the defination happens then #1 will be considered the one used for this debate. Therefore, my position is that roman catholicism does NOT act against or provide resistance to the old and new testaments. It should also be noted that I am an atheist, and I am not debating an argument based on my beliefs in the validity of the new and old testament, only that abstractly catholicism does not act against the old and new testament.
Should children under 13 be aloud to watch PG-13 rated movies

My opponent argues that children sholun't see stuff at a certain age. Once more, this goes towards the accountability of the parents who decide what happens. No one can control what one does, and if one does try to control everyone; this breaks a human right of having free will. So what is a child watches a PG-13 movie, my opponent has failed to provide evidence on the consequences. As well as the fact that my opponent also says the following: "I see where you are coming from and it makes sense". If my opponent agrees with me on this following argument, then thats a drop from my opponent.
Should children under 13 be aloud to watch PG-13 rated movies

I appreciate you accepting my argument. It's my first one. I see where you are coming from and it makes sense but the movie was rated this way for a reason. When you talked about the parent allowing their child to watch the movie, some parents really don't care what their children do. Therefore, they could possibly subject their children to things that they shouldn't be seeing at that age. Also, some might say that it's vital for children should see things like this due to it preparing teens. This would be fine but this would also mean that they have met the age limit. Sources: http://rickeysmileymorningshow.com...
Should children under 13 be aloud to watch PG-13 rated movies

I will argue that children should have the option of being aloud to watch PG-13 movies, even if they are under 13 becuase it is their own accountability. If the guardian of that child concedes, then there is really truly no harm.Also my opponent makes the following statement "There is no reason this should be violated. If it is, it's technically braking the law anyway". It is technically not breaking the law, but is just giving advice on what may be ahead. Stated by the article " Is it illegal for a 10-year-old to see PG-13 movies", it states: "A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them". There is really nothing illegal about it.Source:1. http://myria.com...#
Our current Bible is somewhat different than the original version

What I'm talking about is all changes, big or small. As you said, changing the word order doesn't change the meaning, that is correct but is the bible still changing, yes. As you said the,removed the last 12 verses those Codex's don't contain it, but whether the first copy contained it, I have no idea. It is true that things were changed to let people understand it. Just look at writings like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, those used the dialect of the day but there are different versions that allow us to understand it more clearly. As you said, revisers left it out based on their biases, so this does in fact prove they it was changed. You have been bringing up some good points, but all those things wrap back around the idea of change. The bible was created 2000 years, and it would be extremely hard to keep it in its pure state. The biases of the writers have changed some parts of the bible, we do not know to what extent, but it is obvious that some parts have changed. I'm not saying major parts of the bible have been completely changed, but it has changed. Even today, some writers are rewriting the bible.
Our current Bible is somewhat different than the original version

I'll be talking about the christian bible. There is several versions of the bible, which proves that it has changed over the years. The bible is in over 531 languages, so it would be pure ignorance to suggest that it could not possibly be misinterpreted while translating it to one language. Let's not forget that the bible is over 2000 years old, with many different copies being written so it would have had to be changed slightly over time. I'm not saying the majority of it was changed, but some definitely was. There have been a few parts of the New Testament that have been left out for hundreds of years, so it seems likely that some parts may be missing. A history went on, the English language developed therefore the bible must have changed to fit the needs of the English speakers. As languages develop, we had to change the bible so they could understand it. Here is an example: "after Jesus died, Mary Magdalene and two other women came back to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus, according to Mark 16:1-2). They were met by a man in a white robe who told them that Jesus had been raised and was no longer there. The women fled and said nothing more to anyone out of fear (16:4-8). Everyone knows the rest of Mark"s Gospel, of course. The problem with the remainder of the story is that none of it was originally in the Gospel of Mark. It was added by a later scribe. Those additions include all of the following: Jesus himself appeared to Mary Magdalene. She told the eleven apostles (minus Judas) about this vision, but they did not believe her. Jesus then appeared to the apostles, chastising them for failing to believe. He tells them that those who believe will be saved and those who don"t will be condemned. Then follows a critically important passage of the Bible. And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them. Jesus is then allegedly taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, while the disciples go forth into the world to proclaim the Gospel in miraculous fashion. Without the above passages (which, again, were not written by Mark) the Pentecostals lose their justification for speaking in "tongues." And the Appalachian snake handlers have no basis for their dangerous practices." Sources: http://dangerousintersection.org... http://christianity.stackexchange.com...
Abortion

First, I congratulate my opponent on his debating skills. This was my first debate online so being formal is not something I am used to. I fully expect to lose this. I would like to offer a rematch to my opponent. I made a lot of rookie mistakes. Back to the debate. The point I was trying to make when I was talking about the coma was is if you draw any line other than the inception of the child, You end up drawing a line that can be applied to people who are adults. We can argue on whether people in a coma feel pain but that is off topic. Just because they don't have any sentience, Doesn't mean it has moral value or is a human life. If abortions are all about killing humans that do not have sentience, Then not just a "fetus" will be killed. Why can only the family give consent to killing someone in a vegetable state if they have no sentience? I should be able to go around killing anyone who doesn't have any sentience. I want you to imagine yourself. Then go back to when you were a baby. Then to when you just came out of the womb, Then 1 sec before your mom gave birth. Is it still you? Go back 5 months. Is it still you? The answer is yes. Therefore, If it is a human life, It doesn't have to be sentient to have value.