BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ireland should have one official language

First to refute a point the opposition has said, you said that if Irish is not the official language, than it will be considered "dead" but what I am saying is that Irish won't be discarded or forgotten, we would preserve the language as part of our history but it won't be recognised as the official language of the state. If you look at statistics, which the opposition clearly hasn't, you will see that English is the second most commonly spoken language in the world so realistically, don't you think that for the benefit of the country that only having one official language. In terms of business, if a business deal was being made between a country such as Spain and Ireland, do you think that the deal would be made in English, a language both countries can speak and carry a conversation with, or Irish, a language only a minority of people in Ireland speak and no other country in the world speaks. The cost of having Irish as an official language is over a million euro to keep and add on the training to teach Irish to third level students. It is double since we also have to deal with the cost of English as well. This money could be put towards more beneficial causes such as health care, developing the economy etc. I know you may say that Irish is the roots of our culture, but as I mentioned before, the language will be preserved but won't be recognised as an official language in Ireland. Thank you for listening to my side of the debate and I beg you to propose the motion that "Ireland should have one official language".
Ireland should have one official language

Irish should remain as one of the official reasons for a number of reasons. Here in the US we don't even have an official language but English is the most common. Ireland has a long history and a very diverse culture (By diverse I mean different from other British Isle countries). Learning Irish helps give and preserve Irish culture. Germany and other European countries teach Latin but today is known as a "Dead" language this also helps to keep their own diversity. Irish has been spoken for over 2,500 years but then during British Occupation of Ireland they band the use of the language in schools and thus no one learning it. By not teaching Irish and learning it you're giving into English Imperialism. Ireland fought for it's independence for a reason. Over 25% of the Irish people speak Irish as a common language, unfortunately it's not the majority. But Irish is more widely spoken depending where you're at, it's more common on the west coast and also it's a known language in Northern Ireland, plus thousands of American and Canadians speak this language. Sources: http://www.theguardian.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ireland should have one official language

Ireland has two official languages, Irish being the first. But we never use Irish on a regular basis. What is the point of learning a language that we can't use. In my opinion, Ireland should have only one official language, and that should be English. I will discuss under the following point; *Why preserve a dying language First to define the motion. The word "Official" means a language that is given a special status in a country, state or other jurisdiction. In Article 8 of the Constitution, it states that Irish is the first official language of Ireland and English is the second. However, just because Irish is the first official language, we use English as our official language. Nothing is set in stone. Things change and Irelands official language is one of them. Now onto my first point, Why we should preserve a dying language. In real life, Irish is spoken fluently in places, but the population of native speakers is decreasing every year. Even within the Gaeltachts (Connemara, Dingle, Ring, N/W Donegal), English is commonly spoken. There are only a few places left in Ireland where Irish is spoken well enough to carry out a conversation and understand what the speaker is saying. It is a waste of time and energy and also money to continue teaching the Irish language if the majority of the population of Ireland aren't going to speak it. If you look at the matter realistically, you will see that there is no point having two official languages if the majority of the population speak only one. Therefore, I ask you to propose the motion "Ireland should have only one official language"
This House Believes That A Philosophical Proof of God is Adequate For Rational Belief!

Greetings!Let me start by explaining what this motion means, for I feel a great many will be plagued by misunderstanding. The above topic's spirit lies not in my proving that a philosophical proof for God exists, but that it can. Lets bring this into context, in today's society Atheists, often men like Dawkins insinuate that the question whether there is a God is a scientific one, insofar as philosophy is not a science. I will challenge this and prove (I am accepting the Burden of Proof) that philosophical answers are as valid and sound as scientific ones and a non-empirical proof of God can work. I may present some arguments for God's existence as additional examples, but I need not prove them, but show that they can be valid. The opponent's job is to show that philosophy is not adequate enough to determine whether there is a God, an example may be that it cannot take considerations such as evolution into perspective. Or the opponent may argue that philosophy is not more than speculation and is inherently flawed (a person favorite statement of Hawkings).The Order of Debate:1. The first round is either for acceptance only or if the opponent wishes to write an argument they must forfeit their last round and write nothing more than: "forfeiture as agreed". They will not be forfeiting the debate, but that round, so that we may have an equal amount of space.2. No semantic arguments.3. Sources from books are allowed however they should be as a back-up or a proof not the argument. All arguments and sub-arguments should be mentioned adequately within the argumentation.3. Con must provide a counter-argument. 4. Both parties must in the last speech write a conclusion of mnimum 1000 words which should establish their case, lay out the issues and show why they should win. (no rhetoric please).
This House Believes That A Philosophical Proof of God is Adequate For Rational Belief!

The Eleventh Commandment:"Thou shant vote on this debate". This debate has been agreed to as a tie, so do not vote on it! This debate will happen again (hopefully) and then please do vote on it!My friend/opponent/smelly man will be away for a while and I have a DDO Tier Tournament coming up so....why am I expaling all this, its a tie! El fini,Ajab
This House Believes That A Philosophical Proof of God is Adequate For Rational Belief!

I do apologize for not adhering to the format you have set forth, I was in a time crunch when I put my argument together. Unfortunately, I am going to have to forfeit this debate. I am fairly new to this website and when I accepted this debate, I didn't realize I only had 24 hours to respond. I've tried to make it work with my schedule but I have had a hard time balancing everything. I should have thought about the time constraints prior to accepting this debate, so I do apologize. Hopefully we can have a debate in the future where I do not waste your time. You are a great debater and you've got a great future ahead. I really appreciate your time and congratulations on the win!
For God so loved Israel, NOT the entire world

Many Christians like to hit me with John 3:16, however, Christians don't understand what John 3:16 is really talking about. John 3:16 is talking about the world of Israel, as quoted from the Old Covenant. Rules of debate:1. Challenger MUST be a Christian or Catholic.2. Challenger MUST use the Bible ONLY as evidence.3. Challenger CANNOT change the topic of the talking point.4. Challenger CANNOT change rules of debate. *If any of the above rules are disobeyed, if any rules at all are violated, it will result in CON automatically losing this debate.Rules for Arguments:R1 - Acceptance and agreement only, of the five statues listed above.R2 - Arguments/RefutesR3 - Arguments/RefutesR4 - Arguments/RefutesR5 - Concluding statements If you have any questions pertaining to the topic of the debate, please ask them in the comment section before accepting this debate.*NOTE: I will not change the rules of the debate nor will I make any alterations to the discussion of this debate.
The Problem of Evil is Reasonable

Objections to the POE Contention 1: Omnipotent, morally perfect, and Free Will. P1) "If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. " This premise creates an interesting balance. Morality addresses what actions should or should not be taken. Omnipotence addresses capability. Thus this premise leaves the possibility that there are some things an omnipotent and morally perfect God would be capable of doing but due to perfect morals would not. Thus if eliminating evil requires an action itself that would be immoral then God would not eliminate evil. Such is the case. Free Will: In order to eliminate evil, God would have to destroy or severely limit free will. If we accept the premise presented, and that we have Free will, than it can be concluded that evil is a result of choices made by people exercising their free will. If Free will is a moral good(which I assume you agree) then we can conclude that a God would not restrict free will in such a way as it would be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would itself be inherently evil. Thus we see that If God exists, is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect evil would exists due to the moral good of free will. P2) If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. Agreed, though again the power or ability to do so does not make the required action moral. Could an omnipotent God take free will away… yes. Would a morally perfect one? No. Contention 2: Opposition in all things “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things… righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, …. having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. ” (Book of Mormon) There is no such thing as good if there is not bad. How could a morally perfect God exists if there is not good and bad. Morals themselves are about good and bad/ right and wrong. Arguing that there could exist a morally perfect being with no evil is paradoxical at best. You cannot have “morals” exist without right and wrong. Thus if there is a God, and he is morally perfect. Evil is the natural alternative without which neither could exist. Conclusion of contention: If the first premise is accepted as laid out then it is accepted that there are things that God could do, (being all powerful) but would not do. (being morally perfect. ) Therefore, if eliminating evil requires an action that would be immoral, such a God would not do it despite being able. There is no such thing as good with-out evil. The POE clearly does not disprove the existence of a God.
The Problem of Evil is Reasonable

Full ResolutionIt is reasonable to not believe in God on the basis of the problem of evil.By "reasonable" I mean judging solely on the performance of me and my opponent over the course of this debate.I will argue for the resolution, Con against it. He or she has to show how evil/suffering can coexist with God. This debate will be limited to theodicies like free will, et cetera. No other objections may by used that somehow backdoor the problem.BoP is shared.Ruleskritiks,forfeits,trolling,swearing,using other arguments for or against the existence of God, no noncognitivism of any sort,claiming there is no evil/suffering in the world,claiming that evil/suffering are not bad on God's or any other (moral) standard,or accepting without permissionwill lead to a seven point loss.This debate should be impossible to accept. Please leave a comment if you are interested.StructureRound 1: Con - presents his objectionsRound 2-4: RebuttalsRound 5: Pro presents his final rebuttal; Con waivesDefinitionsGod: An omnipotent (allpowerfull), omniscient (allknowing), benevolent (allgood/loving) transcendental creatorEvil: Any moral wrong doing, any physical/emotional harm, any (unnecessary, avoidable, etc.) suffering will be considered "evil" The coherency of these definitions is assumed.The Problem of EvilP1) 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.(1)Sources(1) http://plato.stanford.edu.........
The Problem of Evil is Reasonable

Conclusion of this debate:“1. God: An omnipotent (allpowerfull), omniscient (allknowing), benevolent (allgood/loving) transcendental creator2. He or she has to show how evil/suffering cancoexist with God. Of course he has to use the definition of God established under 1.3. The Problem of Evil”I think the biggest issue with this debate is what may or may not have been assumed but not explained in round one.“He (being me) has to show how evil/suffering can coexist with God.” I have definitively shown how evil/suffering can coexist with God. It is important to note the words “how” and “can.”This burden is a hypothetical, not literal. My burden is not to show “that”evil “does” coexist with God as pro defined him… rather “how” evil “can”coexist. I said that Pro "wanting me to provide evidence to support whatever it is that he perceives as evil"He claims that is a violation of the rules "claiming there is no evil/suffering in the world, claiming that evil/suffering are not bad on God's or any other (moral) standard will lead to a seven point loss.”I did not at any point in this debate claim there is no evil/suffering… and have therefore not broken the rule.In summary: 1. Unexplained Suffering - never addressed and dismissed due to being irrelevantto the burdens in this debate.2. How much Evil? - never addressed and dismissed due to irrelevance.3. Linguistics and Ontology – semantics at best.4. Libertarian Free Will – It has been demonstrated that free will is empirically obvious… though pro claims I presented the false dichotomy. Actually, he did. When I argued that man had free will, he claims “The Free Will Defence commits the theist to libertarian free will.” In other words pro sets up an all or nothing free will, not me. Being that we both accept that there is an element of free will it is moral to respect that free will.Based on the burdens accepted in this debate and what we have come to it is clear that evil/suffering can coexist with God. That is not to say that this debate contains an argument That evil/suffering does coexist with God, just that it “can.” As This burden has been met, it is only reasonable to Vote Con per round one. The resolution is negated.
The Problem of Evil is Reasonable

Pro says “It is his burden not only to assert a random amount of suffering as necessary, but rather to explain why a loving God would allow for this incomprehensible amount of suffering and no less. ”Pro is attempting to change the burden required in this debate. I refer you to round one where Pro states the burden I accepted in this debate “He or she has to show how evil/suffering can coexist with God. ”I have shown that evil produced through free will of man is how evil and suffering can in fact coexist with an omnipotent, omniscient, moral perfect God and thus fill the burden necessary in this debate. Pro does not contend this point, just attempts to change the burden of proof required and wanting me to provide evidence to support whatever it is that he perceives as evil. Arguments of “How much evil” etc have nothing to do with the burden I accepted in round one. Pro’s full resolution states “It is reasonable to not believe in God on the basis of the problem of evil. ” I have definitively shown how evil/suffering can coexist with God. Thus, it is not reasonable to not believe in God solely on the basis of the problem of evil. The resolution is negated.
The Problem of Evil is Reasonable

"1. Unexplained Suffering" Pro states “Free will does not explain a vast number of evils in this world, like the suffering of animals or natural disasters.” Pro outlined my burden in round one stating “He or she has to show how evil/suffering can coexist with God.” I have done this. What is not included in my burden is to show that each and every case of evil my opponent lists can coexist with God. Thus this contention is irrelevant. The same can be said with Objection 2: 1 “How much Evil” as my burden is to show any amount of evil and suffering could coexist with such a God. So far as my opponent calling my “opposition in all things” contention a non sequitur rather he is presenting a straw man. All of the examples he gives are of “instigating…” Rather my argument was the reference of good and evil themselves. to call one thing good and another bad is to accept there is a difference between the two. If there is no such thing as good or bad, then there is no such reference to be made. Therefore, if we claim that there is a morally good (being in reference to a comparison) God, then it follows there is such thing to make a distinction to… bad. (evil) This leads us to the only real contention. "2. Libertarian Free Will" "The Free Will Defense commits the theist to libertarian free will" (1). To accept Pro’s argument here is to take away all accountability for peoples actions. Which, he does saying “Think about ordinary criminals or immoral people for that matter, is there something many of them have in common? Exactly, many of them were raised in poor households or had a difficult childhood in some other way…” While people do act upon each others free will, (which is my contention for a type of evil that can coexist with God) we accept these actions to be immoral and those who commit them responsible for their actions. The very idea that people can and are held responsible for their actions supports the concept of free will. Thus to accept my opponents analysis of free will here is to undermine truths accepted in society at large. People do have free will, they are held responsible for their actions. If we accept the concept of a omniscient omnipotent and morally perfect God, and that we have Free will, than it can be concluded that evil can be a result of choices made by people exercising their free will. If Free will is a moral good(which I assume you agree) then we can conclude that a God would not restrict free will in such a way as it would be a moral negative. Therefore I have shown “how evil/suffering can coexist with God.” Therefore I have filled my burden in this debate.
United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations.

I'll be focusing today's round into two key voting issues, but first be reminded of the observation I made during the constructive round. Pro doesn't have to use this power in every situation. In fact, I advocate not using it in most situations. The BoP for Pro is to prove that the UN should have the power to do so when it's the appropriate course of action. Pro has fulfilled its BoP by proving both of the following voting issues. 1. The Pro and Con have agreed that when offensive operations are successful, the UN's credibility is increased. The mission in Congo, the first offensive one in about twenty years, was a major success. The M23 rebels have been nearly eradicated, and the Congo has already asked the UN to work with them to fight the next biggest threat, the FDLR rebels. The UN's credibility has been boosted in the DRC, especially in the wake of years of unsuccessful traditional missions (as stated in my constructive). When 3,000 men can do in a year what 19,000 couldn't in over a decade, it boosts UN credibility. My example is about twenty years after the most recent Con example, so it should be preferred. 2. Offensive operations can be successful. I have again proven the success of the FIB in Congo, to the extent where the Congo already wants the UN to intervene again. Again, 3,000 men did in a year what 19,000 couldn't in over a decade. When the most recent implementation was a major success, eliminating the largest threat to the Congo. The fact that the most recent example of an offensive operation has been overwhelmingly successful means that the UN is justified in using offensive ops, therefore should have the capability, and is enough of a reason to affirm. For these reasons I urge the voters to go Pro. Great debate Con, and thanks to both my opponent and the voters!
United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations.

My opponent debatability and I have agreed to debate the January PF resolution. Sides have been pre-determined, and we will follow National Forensics League PF rules as follows. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Case/Constructive Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Sumarty/FF Also, I propose a solution to lack of crossfire: after cases and rebuttals we each post three questions in the comment section. That way we have three per crossfire, more or less what would be involved in a normal crossfire.
Pedophilia is right

I did not say, "Sex is not a stress reliever". What is BDSM? "The point is we all will have sexual encounters so why not teach them while you're young. " We get the sexual encounters later in life. Also, We should not teach students to have sex. They should instead be told to resist sexual urges unless for reproductive pourposes and within the confines of marrage. It sounds religious, But I say this as a current atheist. People shouldn't be having sex at a young age, It increase the risk for unplanned pregnencies which lead to abortions, Something that even liberals want to keep rare, "Safe, Legal and rare". "Also, I believe their should be pedophiles as priests because they literally feel the kids with "the holy spirit. "" They tecnecally aren't litterally doing this. That point aside, Encouraging preists to be pedophilles is unchristain because it encourages them to engage in sexual activity and priests are supposed to be chaste. Jesus never raped anyone, I don't even think he had sex. If preists were to follow Jesus and do what he did, They wouldn't rape innocent kids.
Pedophilia is right

"Sex is not a stress reliever" um have you never masturbated before. It helps take away stress and ease your mind. Plus, You don't just have to have normal sex. You can spice it up with BDSM and other things to satisfy your naughty desires. The point is we all will have sexual encounters so why not teach them while you're young. Also, I believe their should be pedophiles as priests because they literally feel the kids with "the holy spirit. "