BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the U.S. Government Substanittially Increase its help to Sub-Sahran Africa

Because of this shortage of Doctors and Nurses in SSA 60% of the people in Sub- Saharan Africa have H.I.V./ AIDS and they also have Diaherea which 34% of is cause by dirty/contaminated water because of the ratio of doctors and nurses to everyday citizens there are currently not enough available health care workers to treat Sub-Saharan Africa's population so because of this shortage there will not be enough doctors to help treat the people of SSA who become sick. The government and also the people of Sub- Saharan Africa must overcome the fact that almost 90% of their doctors and nurses are leaving SSA and going to other places in the world such as the U.S and the United Kingdom (U.K.) in these places that they are going to they can sometimes make up to 150,000 dollars in U.S. currency as compared to the dollar or two that they would make in Sub-Saharan Africa if they stayed there. Also some people are going to SSA but not to help out but to go to College there because SSA has some of the best Medical Schools in the World as said by Professor Brian Roper whom is the Vice Chancellor of the London Metropolitan University but even with the best medical schools they are still leaving right after college for more money elsewhere. Even if you are a doctor or nurse in SSA you still have to overcome challenges if you stay because there aren't enough roads in SSA to be able to have vaccines and other medicines brought/ shipped in. They must also overcome the fact even if any money from banks or governments is sent to Sub-Saharan Africa it is usually spent on other things such as buying an animated character which is what they did with the 4 million dollars we (US) sent to SSA. They say that it is to inform people about HIV but most people in SSA do not have a television to watch this character so a vast majority of this money is not spent on the people as it should be. My plans to solve this problem are as follows and they are that I think we should expand the budget ceilings of loans from the big 3 which are the "World Bank", the "International Monetary Fund", and the "U.S. Government of Foreign Aid/ U.S. Treasury, this would allow more money to flow into SSA.
Existace of God

As I am incapable of debating since i am not smart enough as i only had a 2.7 gpa and no College degree. Since i am just a human i can not claim anything or to be anything esle for that matter. I have read into the facts enough in the books already out there, to be able to put together a good enough theory to explain how life and how we were created. I just forgetting to prove any of the con's point so i advise and have so to take this debate down. If it stays up it would be wrong and misleading, as what i have said has been lies and would hurt or confused people in the wrong way. Sry, but thanks for debating with me though.
Existace of God

unfortunately for my opponent, his opening line concedes defeat in this debate. If god cannot be proven to exist, then the logical affirmation is to conclude the God/Idea logically contradicts itself, as we know objects which contradict themselves cannot exist. An example of this would be a round triangle or a four sided triangle. Your secondary point is to conclude that humans are usually wrong and ' As in Human Nature, to explain that we knew anything of everything would be wrong ' if that is the case for your argument then I would suggest you have undermined your own ability to prove something. This becomes more obvious when claims are made for example you make them claim that ' I have died here from a overdose in Iraq/ and came back, so to say that I do not have the experience for explaining death would be false, proof is my words '. Now my issue with this is that previously you just admitted or believe humans cannot explain anything, now if that is the case I can void your entire argument. While I don't agree with you being right and believing humans can explain things and provide correct evidence for those things I will deal with the rest of your argument. Now in saying the ' proof is my words ' is something I one cannot except. Evidence is objective and the discovery of that evidence would be objectively true for anyone, evidence is objective to everyone whether they agree or not. If we look at evidence for say the human eye evolving, and there is compelling evidence supporting it then it doesn't matter what you think or say it won't change the fact. On a sub note if the proof is in your words, for what reason can we dismiss Muslim claims of experiencing God by their word? Or even Norse or Greek readings which convey similar experiences. To conclude I do not expect that as evidence and rational minds wouldn't either. I would like to remind you that you have not dealt with any of my three points arguing the non-existence and implausibility of God.
Existace of God

I am trying to prove the existence of a ever existing god. I will use my own logical way of thinking,phrases from the bible and parts of science. My first point will be that science has proven that not god existed but energy exist and that it is a constant. Point two Jesus said him self, to the world that i am a ever existing god, i am the alpha and the omega, and i am the son the father and the spirit. Point three is that he said, which was before science was created that i am the ever existing, without that knowledge of science he did not know energy was a constant, so did he know all are nothing. Point four The way i came to truth that jesus was actually real is that first, no one made up r that was not special could have lasted in knowledge for 2000 years, and only way would be that is by what he said was real. Point five Because Jesus was a demi god not a human he actually did not die, but what happened was that he did not realise he was a demi god and became so weak minded on the cross that he died, since he was a demi god the angles had no choice to come and get him bc he did not realise he was in a deep trance, and since he was just in a trance and the angels came they just woke him up and he became happy and together they rise up. All the guards and his few followers left saw him rise up and they didn"t stop telling people. Since people did not see this they could not believe it, so 2000 years looking back it looks all wrong, even though it is right. (<--- point is if he was nothing how did he last 2000 years). Point 5 If jesus is not real that would mean that heaven is not real, so how are these people going to heaven and coming back? Point 6 How do you explain the people seeing the devil in this life.
The Problem of Evil (PoE) is sound

Outline + All Sources + DefinitionsContra-P1 (Pro's Incompatibility Claim) Resolution Argument http://www.robkoons.net... http://debate.org... Prior Resolution of Divine Non-Interference *With Exceptions, [*R]: A contract whereby God's effective freedom to intervene in the natural world is severely limited. Such a contract is instantiated by God prior to his creation in order to bring into existence a natural world, consisting of real entities distinct from Himself. No Moral Baseline Argument http://faculty.wwu.edu... Contra-P3 (Pro's Factual Claim) Theodicy http://commonsenseatheism.com... Existential Events: Intrinsically Painful or Pleasurable experiences in this life. Just-Seeking-Self-Forming Choice (SFC): Personal indecision during which one experiences conflicting wills and makes a moral choice that forms the self according to what they see as just, while in the pursuit of happiness. -A “self-forming choice” (SFC) involves the following idea from Kane used by Goetz, “...an agent’s most broadly influential SFC ultimately has a bearing on when he will maximize his happiness and the kind of life plan he will adopt in pursuit of that happiness. Moreover, because happiness is intrinsically good, I will term this most wide-ranging SFC a good-seeking SFC.” Viruous Response (potential or actual): a good-seeking SFC wherein evil is defeated by using the existential event as raw material for forming the self in a just way. Skeptical Theism
The Problem of Evil (PoE) is sound

DefinitionsGod - By God, I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good, personal being who created the universe, and is (to a greater or lesser extent) active within the universe.Evil - Anything which in and of itself, rational creatures would universally seek to avoid, ceteris paribus. Examples of such things include suffering, pain, disability and death.The argument will try to show that at least some of these evils are gratuitous (not logically necessary for an adequately compensatory good), and this will be (I suspect) the main contention in the debate.IntroductionFirst off, I would like to thank Con for agreeing to debate this very important topic with me. I’ll try not to take it too personally that my favoured version of the argument seems to attract as many willing and able critics, and I genuinely hope that if I’m wrong, Con will show me the err of my ways. As this round is merely for preliminaries and acceptance only, I want to set the stage by covering some pre-debate nomenclature.Burden of proof and debate rulesAs the affirmative party, the burden of proof will be on me to show that the argument can be justified. I will need to show that each premise is probably true, if I am to carry the resolution. I would simply point out to Con and to the readers that while I undoubtedly start with the BoP, once I do present justification for the argument, the task for Con will be to show that my reasoning is deficient in some way. As such, the BoP is dynamic rather than static, but I will of course be tasked with setting the ball rolling. Any arguments dropped will result in a conduct violation. Numerous such offences will result in a forfeit.Also, Con must (eventually) engage with the points I make in the debate. Although I understand if he wants to solely concentrate on a generic case against the argument in R2 (after all, this practise is standard), I do think we owe it to the readers to with engage each other directly.Lastly, I would ask Con not to make any arguments in R1. The first round is merely for is for preliminary purposes only. With that in mind, all that’s left is to introduce the version of the argument I will be defending.WSA evidential PoE (1)The argument I will defend in this debate will be as follows:(P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.(P2) There is lots of evil in the world.(P3) Much of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.(C) Therefore, there is no God who is all powerful and all good.Con has graciously informed me that he accepts P2. As such, I will only concentrate on defending P1 and P3 in R2, unless prompted otherwise.With this in mind, I look forward to a great debate, and providing an insightful exchange of ideas on a very interesting and distinguished topic.Sources1. God? Debate between a Christian and an Atheist, William lane Craig and Walter Sinnott Armstrong, 2004, Oxford University Press, p84.
The term "hater" is ignorant.

Well, you can't really change the definition of the word during this debate. Although, I understand what you mean, and I will not go on about the definition. I won't really accuse you of not finding evidence or sources of people calling each other haters ignorantly, but it would be very much appreciated for me to work with further rounds. I will try to illustrate two situations where this incident may occur. Situation A: A person who dislikes the video calls his extreme negative opinion about anything about the video The people call him hater blindly, without giving further justification. Well, the people are right, based on the opponent's language or overall comment. If the "hater" choses to further dislike the people around him, then there is not much ignorance involved. Situation B: The person includes flaws or personally dislikes the video. The surrounding people (in their point of view) consider the comment to be hateful, because they are emotionally attached to the video. Although, in a third person point of view this can have some level of ignorance. But since the people are emotionally attached to their opinions, you can't accuse them for being ignorant if you look at from their point of view.
The term "hater" is ignorant.

Since my Opponent has not clearly defined the word "hater" or "ignorant", I will do so in my acceptance round. Hater: to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... Ignorant: lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... I look forward to a good debate!
The term "hater" is ignorant.

People should refrain from using the word "hater"(someone who hates everything without justification). I myself hate many things, but I am not a hater. I care for the quality of the many aspects of society and I have to make sure people don't slip below these standards. Calling someone a hater to brush away constructive criticism is incredibly mean spirited. If we actually hated you we would let you fail then rub it in your face. We want to see you succeed to the best of your ability. Next time someone "hates" on your post don't be so quick to assume they're trolling and consider that maybe they want to help ensure the quality of what you're doing.
Die deutsche Bundesregierung should quarantine HIV-positive people.

"In any case, though, the camps will be self-financing, as the guests will earn their keep by working in the on-site factories - and those guests that are too sick to work will have all their property and possessions auctioned off to cover the cost of their vacation." To this I must voice my strenuous outrage and objection. The right of people to own property is the sacrosanct foundation of Capitalism. Shooting them, or sending them to detention camps is one thing. But to then auction off their property? To auction off the property of those who are too sick to work is despicable, it's borderline Communist. Such vulgar acts are not befitting of the capitalistic automobile producing empire Germany has made itself to be. And furthermore, it will bring about a chaos and disorder as competing business rivals will import HIV infected Thai prostitutes to corrupt business partners to then purchase their assets at significantly reduced prices in these government held auction. The German economy will be assailed from every which angle and suffer disaster unheard of since the 1930s. Without this auction system the concentration camps are thus inviable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "And as regards his faux "Cure for AIDS" centres with firing ranges in the back yard plan - nice idea, albeit morally questionable! However, I'm not sure (and I can't be bothered to check) but I suspect that this proposal may contravene some European Union law or other." You know what else violates international law? Invasion of sovereign countries. "For that reason, I would suggest the Bundesregierung locate the camps somewhere where land is cheaper, like Poland for example." If we're going to violate international law anyway, might as well not save on the expenses. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only part of this plan I approve of is the national screening. Everyone should know definitively whether or not they are positive with the HIV virus. Those who are should abstain from sex with the general population unless they take exceptional precautions. And you know what? Many do. Unlike the common cold, or other airborne virus and bacteria, people with HIV can take measures to make sure the virus is not spread, measures that do not require concentration camps. Thank you.
Die deutsche Bundesregierung should quarantine HIV-positive people.

Many thanks to my opponent for addressing this important issue. According to the genetic marker research my opponent referred to: "the variant may account for one-fifth of heart attacks among white Europeans and North Americans". Actually, obesity is a much bigger cause of health problems. http://news.bbc.co.uk... However, this problem could be alleviated by requiring all fast food restaurants to have narrower entrances. http://www.debate.org... That said, I do accept my opponent's suggestion that obese people should be sterilised in order to stop them breeding and I would urge the German government to adopt his plan without any further delay. My opponent went on to attack my convalescing camps proposal by claiming it would be expensive and inefficient and that it would be much better just to shoot AIDS victims. It is true that land in Germany is quite expensive. For that reason, I would suggest the Bundesregierung locate the camps somewhere where land is cheaper, like Poland for example. In any case, though, the camps will be self-financing, as the guests will earn their keep by working in the on-site factories - and those guests that are too sick to work will have all their property and possessions auctioned off to cover the cost of their vacation. As for any guest that attempts to leave the camp before a cure for AIDS is developed: hosts will be under strict instruction to persuade them that an outside visit would be unadvisable by firing a warning shot into their head. And as regards his faux "Cure for AIDS" centres with firing ranges in the back yard plan - nice idea, albeit morally questionable! However, I'm not sure (and I can't be bothered to check) but I suspect that this proposal may contravene some European Union law or other. My opponent then suggested that Germany is trying to move away from its image of old. Hah! The German people will never change. In the nineteenth century, long before they started two world wars (each time after promising they wouldn't) the author Jerome K. Jerome (who was an admirer of the German race) observed that the German idea of duty is blind obedience to those in uniform. In his book Three Men on the Bummel he wrote: "The worst that can be said of them (the German people) is that they have their failings. They themselves do not know this, they consider themselves perfect". He also noted "Hitherto the German has had the blessed fortune to be exceptionally well governed…when his troubles will begin will be when by any chance something goes wrong with the governing machine." http://books.google.co.uk... I offer my fellow debaters my sincere thanks in advance for their support of this important measure in the fight against the spread of AIDS in Germany.
Die deutsche Bundesregierung should quarantine HIV-positive people.

There is currently no effective cure for HIV, which leads to AIDS and, subsequently, thousands of Germans die of this highly contagious disease each year. Die deutsche Bundesregierung (German federal government) should screen the entire populations for HIV and those found positive should be segregated and transported in sealed railway carriages direct to isolated convalescing camps where guests would be provided with food and accommodation in return for working in factories located within the compound. Obviously, some of the HIV-positive guests may be too sick to work so, in order to cover the cost of their bed and board, their assets would be seized and liquidated, which is only fair to the German taxpayer. In order to stop the spread of the virus to the outside world, the guests will be invited not to leave the camps and, in order to ensure their compliance with this request, the compounds would be surrounded with high security fences, with armed hosts manning watchtowers at intervals. Sadly, until a cure for AIDS is found, many guests will succumb to the decease and so the camps will need to be equipped with crematoria (though, unfortunately, the risk of the spreading the disease will mean that relatives of the deceased will not be permitted to attend the cremations). I affirm that the introduction of convalescing camps for HIV-positive people will do much to help reduce the spread of this deadly virus.
Government

Your argument is already faulty in that it presumes a perfect condition, Which we all know cannot be attained through the subjective preferences of a collective. Second, You have not really made clear the nature of the division of which you speak. Are we talking Executive, Judical, Legislative, Or House vs Senate, Etc. Or are we talking about the 560 members of the government? And operating on your premise, What is "perfect"? "Equal" authority? Allow me a general statement: the purpose of the government, Or so it is alleged, Is to serve as a central representative body to those whom its presumes to govern. The elected representatives are to galvanize its electorate in service to public initiatives, I. E. The establishment of public goods through pooling resources.
Federal Programs are Unconstitutional

It is to my disappointment that my opponent did not provide an argument for the second round, because until he does give a rebuttal I am unable to continue this debate. This, I think, does let us all see weakness and a lacking of credibility in my opponent. But like I said, I cannot continue upon relevant topics until he returns, so unfortunately all I have to say in his absence is that I entreat you to vote for the Pro side of this debate. Thank you, and I give the floor to my opposition to end this debate, if he manages to show up, that is.