BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative Action

I was hoping for a more lively debate, but at least we got one round in right? This is a subject I am very passionate about, and maybe we could rematch sometime? It's so hard to find good debates now. Most of them are all about the existence of god, (or lack thereof), or troll debates. Challenge me again anytime! (I won't challenge you because you are obviously very busy, and only you can choose the time best suited to your schedule)
Affirmative Action

I am running low on time, but I will do my best.Affirmative action is unequal.After the Civil Rights Movement, minorities gained equal rights. However, Affirmative Action makes it so that it is unequal. Now, minorities have an edge in college entrances, and from a job perspective. College entrances, jobs, promotions, and so forth should be based on qualification, and experience.Affirmative action is discrimination.Affirmative action focuses on what ethnicity, gender, or what country they come from. AA is making race and gender an issue. How isn't this discrimination. AA discriminates against not only whites, but Asians as well. Asians are minorities. Only 4.8% of the US population are Asian Americans. Not only are they minorities, but Asians have been mistreated in the past. For example, during World War II, we rounded up Japanese, took their belongings, and put them in concentration camps. [1] Another example is with the Chinese. In the mid-1800s, we discriminated against the Chinese. [2] So why doesn't Affirmative Action help Asian Americans? This is because of the stereotype that Asians are super smart, so they should not get these benefits. Affirmative Action promotes laziness.Affirmative action makes it so minorities don't have to work as hard to get into good universities. Instead of that A- average, they only need a B average (just an example). Meanwhile, the Asian Americans and whites have to work harder, and pay more college tuition. Without affirmative action, both sides will have to work hard, and all will be equal. Unfortunately, I have run out of time.Sources: [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]: http://history.state.gov...
hate is a necessary evil

"belief=love, disbelief=hate" From the pro side themselves, however, there are also agnostics, and other happy atheists as well. As I have said, there are those who do not believe in god/gods, and do not hate other religions. Not only that, but the pro side is also contradicting them self. "you are equating things. . atheism isn't necessary to end a religion, a rockslide can do that. " and "hate to end religion is necessary. . atheism". From what the pro side said, to end religion, you need atheism. But in round 3, the pro side backtracks, and says that atheism is not necessary. So, please drop any arguments about that. I would like to say that the Pro side has conceded my points by saying that they are irrelevant, but has not put any examples whatsoever. I have attacked their case, as I have said in my previous arguments, and the pro side has not blocked any of my contentions either. Not only that, but the pro side has not given any evidence whatsoever, and that I have given definitions to help support my case.
hate is a necessary evil

Actually, since your argument is if "Atheism is hate." Then what you are implying is that all atheist are hateful, which is evidently not the case. "hate to end religion is necessary.. atheism"= So what you are saying is atheism is necessary to end religion. "muslims are atheists to all other religions"= That is not true as that Islam is part of the Abrahamic faith, so Islam is related to other religions. They also believe in a God, Allah, so they are not atheists either. "Atheism is necessary"- How so? Can you give any context whatsoever? What is Atheism necessary for? You have not refuted my previous arguments either. You should vote con as that the pro side has not refuted any of my arguments whatsoever. I have successfully refuted the pro's arguments, while I have built up my own side.
hate is a necessary evil

How is hate a necessary evil? As evil is defined by Merriam-Webster. "morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct ". What you are basically saying is that hate is necessary. You are basically endorsing about evil things. Hate is not necessary in any context whatsoever. We do not need hate to live, or thrive in society. Now, hate will always be there, but hate is not necessary in any context, whatsoever. You also said that religion is only good to end religion, can you prove this in any context? Also, you stated that a religion ending another religion would result in atheism. How so?
Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor

In this debate, I am going to be arguing that "trickle down" economics has been a failure to the poor and middle class.Let's set some terms before we begin.Rules:1) No trolling or insults.2) If you forfeit, you automatically lose.3) You don't have to cite sources for common knowledge, although it would be preferred. If something is not common knowledge, cite it. A general rule of thumb is that something is "common knowledge" if you can find it in three or more sources.Debate period:Round 1: Just greetings and acceptance.Round 2: Main arguments (no rebuttals yet).Round 3: More arguments, rebuttals, counterarguments.Round 4: More arguments, rebuttals, counterarguments.Round 5: Conclusion of argument.
Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor

I'm not somebody who is a complete opponent of keynesian economics. I believe both models have their place depending on the exact flavor of the current economic atmosphere of the time. I think that if you get control of the insanity of student loan debt, you make the usage of Supply Side Economics more viable. I am a Moderate minded person. I believe both models can work effectively if not handcuffed by other irresonsible practices. * Schools purposefully took advantage of the Federal Student Loan programs. They did not look at a student's credit history. They did not look at a student's income. They did not look at a student's ability to repay the debt. They did not look at anything. They just started giving out free loans and money to anyone and everyone. So guess what schools started doing. They started recruiting students in mass, signing them up for federal loans that these students couldn't even afford, but students with dreams of success signed the dotted line figuring they'd get a good job and pay it back. Later, many did not find good jobs, and these heavy loans that took advantage of this overly generous giving of loans of any amount(withinreason) to anyone killed the economy. Obama actually did a good thing on this one in my opinion by implementing student loan forgiveness. Once the balance becomes stable, I believe Supply Side economics can do fine. The problem was that everyone had such heavy debt that they couldn't get loans for houses, spend extra on clothes, food, trips, etc. This effected the entire infrastructure of the economy. The schools got greedy and the government was too slow to act. https://studentaid.ed.gov... Here are some testimonials in a video simply explaining what the student loan crisis did to people. http://youtu.be... They had went to school, tried to get an education and now are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and they can never pay it back. Can they buy a house? No. Can they take trips? No. Can they buy stuff? No. So guess what. That money is not going back into the economy. * So if people were not loading up on unsermountable student loan debt, Supply Side would have been fine. It works as long as the people are not handcuffed by other legislation and/or policies. * In my opinion, if all of these people were free from this crazy debt, Supply Side works fine. But any "trickling down" that happens is pointless if those recieving it cando nothing with it. Take for example, someone with $50,000 instudent loandebt. They are fighting to make it, they do their taxes, they get a tax return of $5,000. Guess what. It's taken and applied to the federal loan. What part of the sector made money? Some school made money that might go back into education, but the economy sees nothing. All that happened is the government trying to make up loan losses, and the civilian has $0 to spend.
God is not worthy of worship

Thank you Seagull for choosing me for this debate! I would to begin by saying you make some excellent points. The problem of evil is an ancient idea, but after close inspection, I believe I have found quite a flaw. I will first explain to you the errors in your points and then present you with a different reason as to why God is entirely worthy of worship. The Logical Problem with the Logical Problem "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then, he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then, he is malevolent. Is God, both able and willing? Then, whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then, why call him God?" This is a very strong point, but it’s subject to two common fallacies: bifurcation and post hoc ergo propter hoc. The problems reside primarily in this phrase: “is he able, but not willing? Then, he is malevolent.” Post hoc ergo propter hoc, often known as the faulty cause, mistakes correlation or association for causation, by assuming that because one thing follows another it was caused by the other [1]. Epicurus argues this: ifGod exists and is all powerful and all knowing, God is obligated to destroy evil. God hasn’t destroyed evil, therefore he himself is evil or he does not exist. A problem with this is that it assumes God is obligated to fix evil. However, what we so quickly forget is that evil is a fault of our own. Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit [2]. The first evil was committed by man, not by God. That sin allowed evil into the world, and it is our fault. Because it is our fault, God is not obligated to fix it. Of course he will, but he isn’t and shouldn’t be required to clean up to mess we made. So the presence of evil does not prove that God is either evil or he does not exist. The second fallacy is bifurcation. This fallacy assumes that two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, that is, something is either a member of one or the other, but not both or some other third category [1]. What is being said here is that, God is either evil for letting evil exist, or he doesn’t exist and that’s why evil does. However, it has been explained that God is not evil for letting evil exist. Epicurus, may not have realized this. Also, malevolence, as defined by Merriam Webster, is “having or showing a desire to cause harm to another person [3].” If we are to say that God is malevolent, we presume he exists. God is also described as being omnipotent, all powerful. If an all powerful God is malevolent, he would simply destroy us. We know that God is not evil. In my next argument I will describe reasons as to why he is worthy of worship. Not just defend his attributes. Thank you. Sources 1) http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu... 2) https://www.biblegateway.com... 3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
God is not worthy of worship

Is God Worthy of Worship? "is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then, he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then, he is malevolent. Is God, both able and willing? Then, whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then, why call him God?" (Epicurus, the Greek philosopher) I imagine most have been exposed at one time or another to the Problem of evil. The quote from Epicurus is perhaps its original form. Here I will demonstrate that Evil exists, and that because of this reality, God as defined in Christianity does not exist and is therefore not worthy of worship. Evil exists I imagine that all who observe the world we live in notice the reality of Evil. For example, there exists a multiplicity of instances of intense suffering. Often this happens to the innocent, or at the very least, the undeserving of the suffering to which they are subjected. Sam Harris put it this way. "Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five. Picture an Asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people; one of those every ten days killing children only under five. That"s twenty four thousand a day, one thousand and hour, seventeen or so a minute" Any God who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in this way and their parents to grieve in this way either can do nothing to help them, or does not care to. He is therefore either impotent or evil." (5) Remember, this is not a comprehensive account of evil that exists. It is merely the tip of the iceberg. Imagine all of the other people that suffer evil through no fault of their own. Consider the sentient animals that can and often do suffer. While many may argue the semantics of evil or what evil consists of, it seems clear that the intense suffering of the innocent is evil. Thus, it seems to me clear; Evil indisputably exists. The Logical problem The following is taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "P1) If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. P2) If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. P3) If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. P4) If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. P5) Evil exists. P6) If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn"t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn"t know when evil exists, or doesn"t have the desire to eliminate all evil. C) Therefore, God doesn"t exist.(6)" Conclusion The God as defined in Christianity does not exist. This is clearly demonstrated through the problem of evil. A God that does not exist is inherently not worthy of worship. Even outside the scope of this essay, we see that if a God did exist, he or she is "either impotent, or evil" and would also not be worthy of worship. Sources (5) (6) http://plato.stanford.edu...
God is not worthy of worship

Resolved: God is not worthy of worshipI realize the nature of this topic is likely to garner the contempt of many. I respectfully ask that you spare me any personal attacks. I sincerely want to debate this topic. I am not motivated to do so out of a desire to disrespect anyone or their beliefs. Rather, I desire this debate as a chance to share ideas. I have done what I can to make this debate impossible to accept. Please apply in the comments. Once an opponent is chosen, we will establish ground rules and format. Clarification: This is in reference to a tri-omni God Before I begin, I want to make clear that in this debate, I am addressing what is known as the God of Christianity. The reason for this distinction is largely because the Christian God is the one with whom I am most often confronted. Of course, I understand Christianity is fragmented when it comes to doctrine and beliefs. However, notwithstanding the difference in doctrine between Christian denominations, it seems reasonable to say that on balance, Christians believe in what is known as the Tri-Omni God. That is to say, they believe in a God that is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent. For the sake of clarity, I will briefly expand on what seems to be intended by these attributes Omnipotent is a reference to power. That is to say, one that is omnipotent is all powerful. For instance, Christians often refer to their God as the “Almighty.“ Indeed, Mathew 19:26 reads “With God, all things are possible.”(1)Demonstrations of this supposed power include; healing the sick, causing a virgin birth, destruction, great floods, raising the dead, and creating the earth itself. C.S. Lewis, perhaps one of the most well know Christian Apologetics, stated the following. “His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power.”(2) In summary, God is said to have unlimited power. This brings us to the second attribute of God; Omniscience. This is a reference to the knowledge of God. One that is omniscient, knows all. Christians tend to refer to God as the “Seat of all Knowledge.” In fact, this is one of the standard arguments giving for prayer or scripture study. As the oft quoted proverb states; “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he will direct thy paths.”(3) We now arrive at the final attribute of the tri-omni God; Omni benevolence. This is the belief that God is morally perfect, the ultimate good. The New Testament states “He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.”(4) Thus, in this debate, my opponent must defend a God as defined by these three attributes. Again, they are Omnipotence, Omniscience, and omnibeneovolence. Sources (1) Bible (2) C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (3) Bible Proverbs 3: 5-6 (4) Bible 1 John 4:8
God is not worthy of worship

So I ran into a problem when I was finishing this debate. Because I can only have 6,000 characters I couldn't fit everything I needed to argue into this round. The full argument is at these two links:. https://iroquoissd-my.sharepoint.com...ANDhttps://drive.google.com...If neither of these two work, I have posted the full argument in the comments just in case. However, here is my case for worship in this round. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for this debate, it wouldn't be fitting to finish without backing the fact that God is entirely worthy of worship. There are many reasons we should worship God. We should worship God for Creation. God made the whole of Creation in only six days and he put us here to enjoy that creation. The universe is so beautiful. The skies are filled with countless stars, the oceans are so large that we are yet to explore 95% of it [9], life itself is so complex we can't even begin to fathom it, the universe may be infinite, and so much more. Creation is so fantastic and so complex. God created it all so we could live in it. We ought to be thankful for this and God deserves way more worship than we can ever muster. Secondly, God is worthy of worship for his perfect plans for us. As described in Isaiah 55:8-9, Gods plans are so big that it is sometimes impossible for us to understand [4]. Also, The first chapter of Habakkuk explains that Gods will is being fulfilled among all the strife of this world [5]. Even more, Jerimiah 29:11 explains that God has a plan for every last one of us. "For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future [10]. " Worship God for his will and plans for you, whatever they may be, because he wants the best for all of his children. Also, worship God because He never ever leaves us (Joshua 1:5), worship God for His unfailing love (Psalm 13:5), worship God because He is faithful when we’re not (Isaiah 30:18), and worship God for the Bible. How cool is it that we don’t have to guess what God wants from us? We don’t have to wonder if He loves us. He has given us His Word to read and study so we can know Him as well as we want (John 20:31). God is entirely worthy of worship for so many reasons. I suggest you look into all of them. I thank you for this debate and I thank the Lord for giving me the opportunity to represent him in this debate. I really do apologize for my forfeiture. I will be posting this in the comments in case the link doesn't work. Thank you.
God is not worthy of worship

Well, bummer.Thanks thebestdebate for accepting this debate. I am sorry to see you forfiet the round. I will simply summarize my position as I have nothing to respond to. The God as defined in Christianity does not exist. This is clearly demonstrated through the problem of evil. A God that does not exist is inherently not worthy of worship. Even outside the scope of this essay, we see that if a God did exist, he or she is "either impotent, or evil" and would also not be worthy of worship.
God is not worthy of worship

Thank you Thebestdebate for your round. Let us submerge once again into the topic. Epicurus is arguing that if God is as defined in round one would not allow evil to exist. It seems intuitive to see that such a being that is omnipotent and omniscient would be worthy of worship if he did eliminate evil. Epicurus is not confusing correlation or association for causation, he is stating that if one is able and willing to do what is moral and does not, they cannot logically be morally perfect. This is basic logic, not fallacious at all. My opponent argues that evil is the fault of man citing the fable of Adam and Eve. This heavily misses the mark for several reasons. Let’s pretend for a moment that the story is true. The supposed sin that was committed was the partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Oddly enough, a Tri-omni God did not have to create that tree, did not have to place it where he did, and did not have to tell Adam and Eve what or where it was. Assuming God’s foreknowledge (his omniscience), he knew that placing the tree there would result in Adam and Eve partaking in the fruit, thus causing the fall of man. It seems more than reasonable to blame God for the fall rather than Adam or Eve in this story. To accept this story is to accept that God created the world, and man and put them in such a way that God knew they would “fall” and cause evil. This seems to me to demonstrate that God according to this story is as responsible if not more so for the fall of man and Evil than Adam. Perhaps even more devastating to this argument is the fact that there is no evidence that Adam and Eve ever existed. Indeed, evidence convincingly demonstrates that they did not exist. Evolution demonstrates there was no first man, or woman thus no original sin, no garden of Eden, no reason to believe evil is the fault of man’s so called original sin. We can reasonable conclude that the existence of evil is the fault and design of an all-powerful God if such a God exists. This leaves us with two options. God is either evil himself, or does not exist. Either way, God is not worthy of worship.