BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
morality is not possible without god's help.

==Refutation== My opponent's argument is invalid because: 1. Obligation to direct morality doesn't dictate actual events. Although one may think that the Creator God would create man with knowlege of what the guidelines of eternal judgment would be, this was not the case. Man was left without any knowlege of right or wrong [1] until the hand of Satan blessed him [2]. 2. The Ten Commandments are not the sole source of morality. Because morality is a system determining right and wrong, it is not limited to the Ten Commandments. A humanist, for example, may use the Humanist Manifesto [3] or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a system of determining right and wrong. Both qualify as morality under my opponent's definition, and both disregard God. ==Points of Negation== 1. The God of the Bible doesn't exist. My opponent defines the god of the resolution to be the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible cannot exist, because he would both be motivated and capable of eliminating needless suffering and natural disasters; however, they exist, so He does not. The God of the Bible also cannot exist because an all-loving God would not punish portions of humanity for eternity for following biological pressures He Himself designed. He wouldn't design an evil temptor, knowing in His omniscience that it would lead to the destruction of mankind, and unleash it upon existence. He wouldn't design a functioning trap, the Earth, and toss all humanity into it to justify His own damnation. A hunter can not blame the dear for being dinner when he himself set up the trap. The God of the Bible cannot exist because his conditions imply a world that isn't. 2. Even if the God of the Bible existed, morality didn't come from Him. According to the Bible, man became aware of right and wrong in spite of God: Genesis 2:15-17: The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die. ” [1] Genesis 3:4-6: “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. ” When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. [2] According to the Bible, morality was impossible without Satan. Without Satan, humans would never have acquired morality. This contradicts the resolution. ==Conclusion== Either the Bible is true or not, but either way, he isn't the reason for morality. ==Sources== [1] . http://www.biblegateway.com... [2] . http://www.biblegateway.com... [3] . http://www.americanhumanist.org... [4] . http://www.un.org...
Religious Symbols Ought to be Removed From Public Places

Thank you for starting the debate. For the record, I actually agree with the topic (generally), but I thought your case would be fun to argue, and I really want to see how you defend some of it. First, I'd like to point out that Merriam-Webster gives multiple definitions of the word public, and you did not specify which one we are using. However, they are all very similar, and are quite in-line with the vernacular. In the context of your case, it seems to mean, quite basically, the opposite of private. Since you didn't specify which defintion we are using, I'm going to debate it from this standpoint. I hope we don't have to waste a round over any definitional disagreements. Now, here's my entire case: Isn't a church a public place? Now, on to attacking your case. You offer three main points. I will refute each of these. 1.) Consideration. You're basically making the argument that because someone might be offended or insultied, this should be illegal. When did being rude become a crime? It may not be nice, but I don't see any reason why we should be outlawing rudeness. That just seems like the government governing morality. Moreover, you talk specifically about a Satanist walking around a public place where crosses are displayed prominently, and the insult that he must feel knowing that other religions look down on his and do not accept his religion as equal. Well, other religions will still think this whether or not they can display crosses in public places, and the Satanist will surely know about this antagonism either. The problem here is not the display of religious symbols, it's of the inability of various religious groups to get along. Don't make the displaying of religious symbols your scapegoat. 2.) Fiction. So just because we don't KNOW that any religion is right, it shouldn't be disiplayed in the public? Just because something is fiction means that it shouldn't be in public places? I'll remind myself to stop reading Stephen King books in public parks. 3.) Equality. Yeah. You'd have to give various religious groups equal rights to display their religious symbols. I'm not seeing the problem here. The only real problem you assert is a financial burden. But how much does it cost to make a cross?
Religious Symbols Ought to be Removed From Public Places

How unfortunate that his account was deleted. I was very much looking forward to his responce. I'll remind the audience that the judging is not on your personal opinion on whether or not religous symbols should be removed, but on which debater defended that stance better. If you feel the need to justify you annonymous vote, I very much encourage you to do so in the comments section. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
Women should not be allowed to drive SUVs

I have a few problems with your past arguments. "Your argument about the sexy babe driving next to you is flawed. I personally don't check that girl out because I am passing her at high rates of speed! Second, that just doesn't happen." Your argument about the distracted lady almost hitting you is flawed. I personally have never been almost hit by a distracted driver, male or female. Second, that driver could be anyone. "I care plenty for their rights" I could tell... "They are a threat to any other person on the road." I think that it's safe to say that ANYONE driving is a threat, regardless of gender, although... Because I realize this is not a (and I hesitate to say it in prospect of the undoubted disapproval you would show) "serious" debate, I will not go into how constitutional this may or may not be; however, I will put in some statistics: In 2006 alone, there were 29,722 male drivers killed, as opposed to the 12,747 female drivers killed. There are more male drivers than female drivers dead each year.. If anyone, guys should be banned from driving SUVs. Now, while it is true that men drive more, when compared on an average of miles, you get figures like this: "There are 1.35 male deaths as opposed to .77 female deaths for every 100 million miles driven." -- From the aptly named http://www.resource4accidents.com... "MORE ACCIDENTS HAPPEN WITH WOMEN INSTIGATING THE PROBLEMS WHEN THEY ARE DRIVING IN AN SUV!" Do you still think so? The only factor that contributes to a heightened risk is the fact that the woman is driving an SUV. These vehicles are two times likelier to kill others in a crash. Maybe you should be concentrating on banning these dangerous vehicles instead, rather than blame the people, or more specifically, the gender of the people. Thanks for considering me a sissy!
Women should not be allowed to drive SUVs

"I probably have the vote of all females on this website, as well as female-like guys." I have two problems with this sentence alone! 1) Debate isn't about the votes, it is about two people interacting and delving deep into the art of reasoning and thinking. 2) Why can't the manly women vote for me if the girly men will vote against me? Your argument about the sexy babe driving next to you is flawed. I personally don't check that girl out because I am passing her at high rates of speed! Second, that just doesn't happen. And finally, SUVs don't have tinted windows. When men stand high in a vehicle, they feel powerful, not horny. Geeze, you must be one of those sissy guys to think otherwise! "Now obviously you are not concerned about women's rights nor are you concerned about their basic human rights, or you would not have called for the National Guard to presumably force these unfortunate females out of their beloved vehicles." I care plenty for their lives, but I also care for the right to LIVE!!!! They are a threat to any other person on the road. They will be driving along and then BAM, some old lady is down for the count and the walker is stuck to the front of the vehicle and the woman driving has no idea what just happened. I care plenty for their rights, but they impede on others' when they drive! MORE ACCIDENTS HAPPEN WITH WOMEN INSTIGATING THE PROBLEMS WHEN THEY ARE DRIVING IN AN SUV! I AM NOT BIASED, BUT RATHER CONCERNED. (Sorry, my caps lock was on, I don't feel like rewriting that.) Thanks for considering me a bigot! - Cheeks
Women should not be allowed to drive SUVs

Well first of all, I probably have the vote of all females on this website, as well as female-like guys. Second of all, I would like to point out that women are not the only ones who "feel safe and secure" in their SUVs. After all, don't guys also love their big, masculine trucks and Land Rovers? Besides, guys can be just as distracted while staring out of the window at the nearest busty blonde, making it even SAFER for women to drive, as attractive females are much harder to make out when seen through the tinted windows that are almost standard in cars today. I will go even further on that point and say that further distractions may ensue from the high vantage point given to males by their SUVs. This enables them to peer into other, lower cars with greater clarity, and if they do manage to find some "booty" or "hot stuff," red lights may be missed or people hit. Therefore, women should be persuaded into driving SUVs, as it makes them safer to unruly males. Now obviously you are not concerned about women's rights nor are you concerned about their basic human rights, or you would not have called for the National Guard to presumably force these unfortunate females out of their beloved vehicles. Also, as I hope I have pointed out clearly, this IS a gender-biased debate, as you have not considered the many distractions members of the opposite gender face.
Women should not be allowed to drive SUVs

HOLY SCHNIKEEZE!!! It's been snowing in my city and almost everyday I almost get hit by a woman putting on make-up, talking on their cell phone, and driving an SUV!!! This is not a patriarchal debate or even a gender-biased debate. This is a debate about domestic security!!! When women get inton an SUV (I will also advocate not Hummers) they feel safe and secure so they disregard the rest of the people around them! I was turning onto one of my streets and it is a two way. I car is parked on her side of the street and I am open to go on my side. There is plenty of time for her to stop, but she is talking on her cell phone and is driving right at me! I stop the car and if I wouldn't have honked, I might not be debating here right now! THIS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY CRISIS!!! SEND IN THE NATIONAL GUARD AND HURRY BEFORE WE ALL DIE!!!!!! Oh God help us all!! - Cheeks
People who spend their welfare money on un neccesary things should not be allowed on welfare funding

I'm probably even more of an extremist than my opponent. I sincerely would like to see all forms of welfare and social spending completely abolished. However if it's not being abolished than it needs to be done correctly. My opponent came here to speak her opinion and to try and discuss if people on Foodstamps should be alowwed to spend beyond necessities. I gave my response showing how implementing my opponent's vision would be too tedious, and based on how unique everyone's dietary needs are it would involve too much micromanaging of people's food purchases to be capable of implanting this. It's easy to miss, but my opponent just conceded the debate. I'll copy and paste it here for the benefit of the voters. "Yeah you're right because people are going to spend their welfare money on whatever they want. I'd like to end this by saying that the occasoinal candy bar though not a necessity goes a long way towards keeping a kid near the poverty line sane and is one of the few things they have to look forward to at the beginning of each month.
People who spend their welfare money on un neccesary things should not be allowed on welfare funding

The burden of proof is clearly on pro in this debate. The government can't reasonably differentiate between unneccesary and necessary good stamp spending. Even the definition of necessary will change from person to person. Foodstamps allow the purchase of candy for children. Most people will consider the candy unneccesary, others would say it's a necessary luxury. Hey, kids need a treat occasionally. Now you're discussing the government micromanaging what's bought with Foodstamps. Our individual dietary needs can differ dramatically for person to person. How is the government supposed to micromanage these decisions? In summary here are the problems. Pro wants the government to micromanage people's food purchases which involve taking into account everyone's unique and different nutritional needs as well as taking away the occasional candy bar that most kids can look forward to, without so many other luxuries in life.
French being taught in Canada is unnessicary if only taken untill grade 9

This is my first debate and I would like to hear another persons point of view. In Canda french has to be taught untill grade 9, then its optional if you want to continue. Learning a new language is great and I would love to do so but in high school (grade 9) it is treated rather as a class simply nessicary to pass to graduate. The attitude french teachers and students have is disencouraging me to memorize numerous verb conjigations, spellings, and pronounciations. If i want to simply memorize I can do that in science class and learn about the world at the same time, or history and learn about great people. Learning a language can be hard because memorizing is nesicary, you cant simply know like you do in other classes. To follow with this the teachers constantly remind you that its nessicary so then it seems like a pointless class because now we arent trieing to learn a language for the sake of learning a language. We are passing a course which is nessicary in Canada. With this negative prespective on the class I find it hard to spend countless hours memorizing things I will forget in a week, let alone for the rest of my life like in Math for example. My marks are very high, except in french which is 58%. So to sum it off 1) Its not treated as a way to learn a language, its treated like a compulsary course which has a forgotten purpose. (i can simply memorize numbers instead of letters and I will achive the same results from the experience in most units) 2)Most of the marks are dirived from memorizing verbs which are forgotten in a week, and forgotten about after you graduate! 3)In stead of this course students can spend time on subjects that teach a good leason. Remember that this debate is only counting students who learn until grade 9 and no further. Learning a language can be extremly benificial and if continued can increase your chances of getting a job greatly, but if you only take it until grade 9 it wont matter. Thanks I await a response :)
Flat tax is a good idea.

First of all I would like to keep this debate as conceptual and philisophical as possible. I want to debate the idea as a theory. The flat tax is a great idea. It saves the government tons of money and labor hours that a complex progressive tax code causes. If you remove the complicated and confusing deductions and safe havens for tax money that allow the wealthy to pay less in taxes, they would actually have to pay their fair share. Believe it or not, the wealthy would pay more in a flat tax. It would also reduce greatly number fines layed out each year to people who make simple mistakes and thereby violate the law. I don't remember who said it but here's a quote "the current tax code turns more americans into criminals than any other law in the books. Oh yeah, and the flat tax is fair.
Flat tax is a good idea.

" You start off by saying that taxes themselves are unjust but then you justify the existence of taxes in the statement above. " No, I justify the existence of fees (e.g. I anticipate your points.) A tax relies on force. The money can be attained without taxes, like any other enterprise. For example, charge a percentage of each contract for it to be registered as enforceable in court (presently this service is subsidized needlessly by taxes). Charge for having lines to 911, charge a small percentage of a property value for the service of protecting it (simply don't pursue potential thieves or trespassers of a person if they don't pay), etc. "Care to talk about the flat tax." I am talking about the flat tax by talking about taxation in general, unless you wish to demonstrate that a flat tax is not a tax.
Flat tax is a good idea.

Conceptual and philosophical eh? Not just the flat tax, but tax itself, is a betrayal of the proper purpose of government, a betrayal of the rights of man, an act of war and plunder against the producers. Fair is a notoriously difficult term to define but it usually doesn't involve theft. Governments exist to protect the right to life and its consequent rights of liberty and property. It does so by providing various services in the form of retaliatory force- police, courts, military, etc. It needs money to do so, and can gain it in the same manner as any other enterprise- by charging for the services and, in the event of nonpayment, witholding the service. It may not send men with guns to steal the money from those who do not want to buy the service, or it is itself the criminal and surrenders all right to claim the pursuit of justice.
either the catholic church has contradicted itself, or unbaptized dead infants cannot enter heaven

youve basically said all statements that appear to be strictly read are really just general rules. how is this not allowing for contradiction? if as example a rule says all users of a road must pay a toll, then this is the rule. you are basically saying since God can do anything, he can break his own rules, even if it's been expressed that the opposite is true, that infants go to hell. why wouldnt the cop out of God can do anything not be applied to anything as an exception, that basically negates the expressed intentioned rule. "all unrepentant unbelievers go to hell".... evn this that is assumed as a truth by catholics etc could be said to be up for grabs. also the noninfallible statements give context to hisoical thoght etc. popes say they go to hell, cant be saved, and Auas, augustin, pope gregory's moralia etc say it too even more explicitly the best uve argued is the point about herrod. i dont know how historical this is. plus u go on to say in even the next quote to say we have no way of knowing the fate of infants. really though the church has spoken clearly, they go to hell, or cant be saved
maybe is a powerfull word when i dont know

Having seen my opponent's previous debates, I'm a little fearful. Anyhow, I will argue that maybe is not a powerful word when you don't know. perhaps; possibly. This is the google definition [1] of maybe. When you don't know, it is possible that the thing may be possible, or perhaps happen. Maybe is not a 'powerfull[sic]' word. 1.)https://www.google.co.uk...
Should we reopen the Jonben"t Ramsey case and get justice done

BOP is on my opponent because he is suggesting we take a certain course of action that deviates from the status quo (i. e. we should start investigating a crime from not investigating a crime). So for the most part I'll wait to hear his case for why it should be re-opened, but I'll make a few brief points until then.1. There's no point. If we had some kind of lead or something to go off of there would be a point to re-opening the investigation. But it's a cold case for a reason: there's no evidence to go off of, there's no leads to pursue at the moment. Everyone that they've interviewed has been cleared of the crime and there's no one else on their suspicion list. Re-opening it would just be a waste of funding. 2. The people investigating the murder were so godawful at it that there's no reason to let them back at it for a second time. "It was while the police were waiting for the call that they made several critical mistakes. They did not conduct a proper search of the house, the area was not sealed off and friends were allowed to walk in and out at their leisure. No moves were made to protect any forensic evidence. " (1)I now await my opponent's case for the debate to begin in earnest. Sources:(1) . http://www.trutv.com...;
God exists only in the heads of men

In the end, humans have only humans to blame for their trouble. But we also have ourselves to thank for all the good we do. The notion of god exists only to comfort and suppress the masses. God is nothing more than a figurehead of an age old game of control. Thank you for playing with me Dilara (Heart's Desire). In all honesty, I feel you've been a rather fun opponent. I also accept some of my arguments were quite weak.
God exists only in the heads of men

Good point but I would like to point out that people do pray during times of distress. And religious moral codes encourages people to do good things like give charity and be kind. I'm not doubting that religion is used to control people a lot but it's also used for good. A good person is Someone who doesn't harm or kill others and does good for others. Sex out of marriage doesn't harm anyone so it's ok. Remember back than thousands of years ago people got married in their teens. It was just a common custom. The Romans and Greeks married in their teens and other people did so even before Jesus. I know the bible has lots of silly stuff that doesn't make sense but a lot of stuff in there that people actually follow is about helping others.