BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists

My Argument:His refutation to this is it's a fallacy, then doesn't support that premise, then he posts a contradictory argument of free will. People believe that god has a plan for us. If this is true then it is contradictory with free will. Free will means that we are in control, not god. [2] But according to the belief in god itself he is in control, if this is true then free will doesn't exist, of free will exists and evil exists then god cannot exist according to the POE. I will sum this up with a shorter POE:" (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 evil in the world.(P3) Some 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. "[3]To end the defense of my argument my opponents refutation actually contradicts with the god has a plan aspect of god.My opponent basically posted a KCA type argument that goes as follows:"1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.2. The universe had a beginning.3. Therefore, the universe had a cause." [4]I will refute his Kalam Points in Order:Premise 1:The universe did have a beginning, but this does not mean god created it. We agree on this premise, the universe has a beginning. Premise 2:Now here's where we disagree. Your are claiming an action such as the big bangs occurrence is impossible without god. I argue the big bang was created but not by a god. Saying everything has a cause is actually contradictory to the fact that god himself doesn't have a cause. [5] So, if everything must have a cause then god cannot exist as god fundamentally was not created. Now then I must explain what made the big bang. The big bang was started by naturally occurring quantum fluctuations. [6] Ok now to refuting your premise. If your premise was true energy would be concentrated, energy not expanding now shrinking. You forget the fact the big bang, a ton of energy, is expanding. As the big bang is expanding your premise is now false as energy is growing, not staying put. [6]Premise 3:I have proven the big bang was a natural occurrence therefore god doesn't exist. Conclusion:I have defeated his arguments and proven his refutations contradictory to god himself, vote con. [1] Jeremiah 29:11[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.debate.org...[4] http://www.debate.org...[5] http://www.reason42.com...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
God exists

First off I would like to address Con's points, specifically point 6 which is a non-sequitor logic fallacy. You falsely assume that because evil exists, God cannot exist but you not display how this is the case. The key fallacy in your argument is the statement, "As god is all powerful, morally perfect, and all knowing it is very safe to assume he would stop all evil". We are left to assume God would stop all evil. Because God is a moral God, and it is immoral to infringe upon the free will of people, God does not infringe upon this free will. Evil is like cold. Cold is simply the absence of heat. Evil is the absence of morality. Men choose to have an absence of morality. Because God is a moral God, and infringing upon free will is immoral, God does not force you to be moral. Because God does not force yo to be moral, the decision to be evil, or absent of morality, is up to the individual. Now I would like to present my points in favor or God, or the supernatural. 1)The universe had a definite origin. It had a definite end. We know this because the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of energy available to do work in the universe is decreasing. It also states that energy cannot travel from areas of low concentration to areas of high concentration. Therefore the fact that we have not run out of energy available to do work, and the fact that there is concentrated energy present in the universe dictates that the universe had a definite beginning. 2)The natural origin of the universe is not possible. The natural laws of science, specifically the first and second laws of thermodynamics dictate that the creation of matter and energy, as well as the concentration of energy in the universe is not possible. Matter cannot be created, energy cannot be created, and energy cannot travel from areas of low concentration to high. Because the natural laws dictate that energy cannot be created or increased in concentration, we can conclude the the creation and concentration of energy in the universe is not natural. 3)The universe had a supernatural origin. Because the universe had a definite beginning, and the beginning was not natural, it must therefore be supernatural. God is defined as the supernatural. Therefore God must exist.
Flipped Learning Should Not be Used In Schools

Third, the Flipped Learning strategy runs the risk of adverse health outcomes for students. Students would spend more time indoors on their computers instead of being active in the outdoors. A study conducted be the Australian Government department of National Health and Medical Research Council in 2007 found that 1 on 4 children aged 2 " 16 were overweight or obese and that figure is expected to grow. The department also found around 60% of adults in 2011-2012 were overweight or obese. Children spending more time on computers will definitely add to the expected increase in obesity among children and long term complications associated with obesity, such as heart disease. This would in turn entail increased governmental expenditure in public health promotion and healthcare funding.
Flipped Learning Should Not be Used In Schools

Second,if we use flipped learning technology or using presentations in the class that will not only help to students but also to the teachers. It will definitely helps them to reduce their work load.Ordinary teaching process also bores to students they star bunking the class due to less interest. If they show animation and some useful presentations that will help student to learn quickly.As we all know we enjoy watching movies not the novels from which the story has bee taken.Flipped classroom also helps someone who are suffering from disabilities they can refer it their place also at anytime in any way they want
Flipped Learning Should Not be Used In Schools

Second, Flipped Learning could be very difficult for teachers to manage, adding to their workload. Although you may argue material is made by University's, teachers still have to review the material and are sometimes required to make extra material for students that are either struggling or well ahead of other class members. A survey by the BBC found that secondary school teachers were working an average of 55 hours a week. 21.5% of this time was spent outside of the classroom before 8am or after 6pm. Flipped learning would add to the hours teachers are already working due to additional time and effort required to record each individual lesson. Teachers would also need to be highly organised and make sure all material is prepared well ahead of classes. For those unfamiliar or inexperienced with the technology, this would compound the issue further. Flipped Learning would without a doubt worsen working conditions and lifestyle for teachers.
Flipped Learning Should Not be Used In Schools

The flipped classroom is a pedagogical model in which the typical lecture and homework elements of a course are reversed. Short video lectures are viewed by students at home before the class session, while in-class time is devoted to exercises, projects, or discussions. If we see the benefits of flipped learning it reduces the time of any particular child.Students can focus their mind more on pratical knowledge then theoritical concept . The main importance of flipped learning is that student can collabrate in online disccusion with many teachers and can do research at home also.Generally flipped vidoes are preperd by the professionals hired from the universities which is the dream for every children of the world. Thus its also helping to clarify the concepts of the particular child.
Flipped Learning Should Not be Used In Schools

Firstly, the flipped learning initiative heavily relies on student preparation. In flipped learning, students have to take responsibility for their learning, without the assistance or supervision of a teacher. This may become a problem if students do not take an initiative in their learning. In my experience, some students may use a system such as this to evade school work, leading to a backlog of unlearnt material. This would become a hassle for teachers as they would have to ensure their students are actually learning at home and not cheating the system. Could you have peace of mind knowing your child or students could easily evade work?
Hulk Vs SuperMan

Very nice argument, this has been very fun. Yet we must get one thing out of the way, Hulk is a Marvel character while Superman is a DC character which means that they are from two different worlds. Yes there has been many mash-ups between the two, but because of the fact that it is not brought up in the debate until now, I take it as we are not using those as a basis for this argument. Hulk may be able to jump planet to planet, but superman can fly into the atmosphere, if he can do that he can most defiantly fly to another planet. Hulk has super strength and can withstand a military force, but superman has abilities that a military force doesn't have such as strength extremely better than an average human, can fly faster than a jet and can shoot laser beams from his eyes. He might not have the strength compared to the Hulk, but he has speed, special abilities and Is very intelligent compared to the Hulk ( not Bruce Banner ) so he is not defenseless when fighting the hulk and I superior in smarts and has ambition to not lose after all that has happened in his life so he will also never give up. This was a brilliant and exciting debate!
Hulk Vs SuperMan

Well yes as I do agree with the fact that It would all depend on Hulks surrounding, and I also like how you agree with what I said, in a small way. As-well as you said that Superman could not kill the hulk, he would 'immobilize (apprehend) him' , but first we need to establish how he would apprehend him, because superman is not like, lets have other superheros who have powers like cages or what not. You also brought up the fact that super man can fly, yet in the comics Hulk can jump from planet to planet no problem, going by this it would be easy for Hulk to catch Superman. Going back to the thing you said about the surrounding, you said hulk would go after the surrounding first before trying to take on Superman, when this is wrong. If we go to look at the comics or even the movies we can see that when he goes into his Hulk form he gets a set objective, and before doing anything else he finish the objective, which in this case would be 'Destroy or Kill Superman". Now to the point you made about the uncontrollable, I know we set that we would be talking about the movie Hulk, which yes does have quite a few problems with controlling his anger, lets go with the avengers, this illustrates the fact of going for the objective, he went for the aliens (before going to kill the people around him. ) Of which he doesn't. In fact he even saves them.
Hulk Vs SuperMan

Hello sir, Well, as you said Hulk has no cap top his strength, yet the stronger he gets the more uncontrollable he gets, and yes Superman's weakness is Kryptonite, but Hulk in his green form is not the best thinker and would not utilize this strategy while he is going on a rampage. While Superman can use Hulk's Weakness, which is Being uncontrollable. Superman can Wear the Hulk down which is possible and has been proven in many comics and movies. Plus superman does not rely on strength as he can fly, and he has intellect and can have a strategy plan while the hulk Just destroys everything in his way to get to his challenger, As in this debate, would be Superman. Another factor is surroundings, Hulk would charge and smash and also use debris but say he was in a sand dune area he would lose an edge, but unlike the hulk Superman does not get affected by his surroundings and area like hulk does. as many know superman is the last of his kind from his home planet that had been destroyed, this means that he has as least something to fight for while Hulk only fights when he gets angry and goes on a rampage. As you said, Hulk cannot die. Although I don't think that Superman would attempt to kill the Hulk but immobilize him to where he couldn't harm anyone including Superman.
Hulk Vs SuperMan

As I am sure you know I will be stating my case of 'Hulk would beat superman in a fight'. To get to my main point Hulk would beat him hands down, the reason for this is Hulk cannot die, but superman can, sure it'll be a long fight, but the madder Hulk gets the stronger he gets and this has no cap to his power, he will rise to new levels if he gets mad enough, when superman has a cap to his strength and he has a weakness, cryptonite. We also need to establish a base line on what gen. of Superman and Hulk we are using as we both know there are many versions. For the sake of this we will go with the most common ones, being 'The man of Steel' superman and the Hulk from his movies. First off, as I stated above, Hulk has no limit on his power when superman does. (Superman's power all depends on where hr is at the given moment such as being stronger on earth then krypton) when Hulk is as strong as he is anywhere and can get increasingly powerful. Second, Superman has a weakness, kryptonite, and when we look at Hulk he has no weakness and cannot die, superman can. Site sourced: www. dccomics. com marvel. com and of course Wiki
Christian women should not go to male gynecologists

I have 3 main arguments as to why women should not visit male gynecologists: 1. Because men are naturally aroused at the sight of an attractive woman. 2. Because there has been a lot of male doctors over the years who have lost their licence for sexual misconduct, all of which caused trauma to their female patients. 3. Because it can sometimes cause conflict in marriage. I'm unsure what objections my opponent will bring up, but here is what he must do: If he is going to make the claim that male doctors are "professionals," he has to make it clear what he means by professional. Is he saying that male doctors don't look at their patients sexually if the patient is attractive? On the other hand, if my opponent admits that it's possible for male doctors to look at their patients sexually, I would like to know how he would feel if he had a wife who went to a male doctor and was taken advantage of. If by any chance my opponent says that it doesn't matter if the doctor looks at his patients sexually, just as long as he acts professional, then I would like my opponent to explain the moral basis for this. On what moral basis is it okay for a male doctor to look at his female patients sexually while they are in a vulnerable position. My opponent really needs to explain his justification. I'll look forward to his reply.
Abortion takes the life of a distinct, living, whole human being

This is a very simply debate with a simple contention. Yet I am amazed at how many people deny it. Therefore, I intend to to put this to rest once and for all. The parameters of this debate are narrow, therefore, any acceptor of this challenge ought to argue on-topic. I will defend, from science, three basic contentions: Abortion takes the life of a... 1) Distinct 2) Living 3) Whole ...human being. That is it. Morally speaking, nothing is at stake explicitly. This is to challenge those who hold the view that the unborn are "mere clumps of cells" or "not even human" etc. So, who shall take me up on this challenge or are we all in agreement regarding the humanity of the unborn? After the initial acceptance of the challenge, I shall present my case. Therefore, if someone accepts the debate, they should only accept, and not present reasons for their view until the second round to respond to my case. There are four rounds 8,000 Ch. Max 72 Hour response time The defense awaits a response.
George W. Bush is a disappointment to the United States of America!!!!!

I argue that he is not a disappointment to the U.S. as a whole, but merely a disappointment to our government, or the executive branch. The fact that he is running the executive branch is disappointing enough, but the is not disappointing to America as a whole, because over 2/3 of the population hate him. That constitutes pity for us, not disappointment.
Micromanagement is an effective leadership principle (2)

"If you want something done right, do it yourself." - Napoleon BonaparteMicromanagement (as a general rule) is an effective managing style for government and business leaders. Con will argue the opposite.Micromanagement - a managing style whereby a manager/leader closely observes or controls the work of subordinates or employees. Effectiveness - The degree to which objectives are achieved and the extent to which targeted problems are solved. In contrast to efficiency, effectiveness is determined without reference to costs and, whereas efficiency means "doing the thing right," effectiveness means "doing the right thing." [1] The effectiveness of the new software was pleasing to the whole team as it was a joy to use by all. 1)http://www.businessdictionary.com...... This challenge goes to sengejuri.Rounds:1)acceptance2)arguments3)counter arguments / rebuttals4)rebuttals / conclusions
"School of the hard knocks" isn't a replacement for an academic education.

The school of "hard knocks" is equivalent to life experiences, and is paramount to self awareness and growth. Yes, it is a replacement for academic education for many, many areas of life: marriage, relationships, raising children, learning acceptance, religion and spirituality, service to others, relationships, politics, family, managing people, working with others, and yes, forming opinions about any and all topics that concern the planet that we all equally share. Affordable housing rights, animal rights, and immigration issues... all of these require no formal academic education to have a worthwhile and credible opinion. If you are focusing on specific techncial debates, such as the science related to climate change, the financial markets, or healthcare reform, then I would agree that becoming knowledgable on the topic is paramount. That doesnt mean an academic education. Learning takes place in many venues. But you were not specific in your opening debate. Only now, are you focusing on a few topics. You stated, "If you are bringing children into this world and you're (by choice) giving them very little intellectual sustenance, I will judge you.Even if you're the nicest person on Earth, even if you're a loving parents and a good friend, your ignorance is still hurting other people." Are you an expert on child rearing, to know that children raised with limited intellectual sustenance will be ignorant and hurt society, and where have you provided evidence that this is true? You haven't. You believe you have the power to judge someone's ignorance? By who's standards? Yours? It sounds that you are very frustrated with the political scene on certain issues. It also seems that you have the answers and believe you have the right to call people out on their ignorance. When you continue your education, an excellent academic humanities class, will teach you that the first necessity, in order to make changes that you wish to see, is to respect and accept other's opinions. And from that, creatively find a way to find common ground in a civil way. Commonality is always there.
"School of the hard knocks" isn't a replacement for an academic education.

Love and kindness aren't really mutually exclusive with being educated. It's not like education turns people into selfish monsters. Same thing with self-awareness. I'll too say that color of the collar doesn't matter. There's lots of blue collar people who are self-educated. There's lots of white collar people who are really ignorant outside of what their high-paying job demands. Maybe street smarts is enough for one to live their life happily and make their family happy. But in terms on effects on society, it's not enough when uneducated people vote with both their ballot and wallet for politicians and corporations who hurt the economy and the environment. You took the con position. You are supposed to argue that "the school of hard knocks" IS a replacement for an academic education. I don't think you did that.
"School of the hard knocks" isn't a replacement for an academic education.

The choices I made with regard to my son's health, in hindsight, were educationally irrelevant. I learned nothing substantially more than to make myself feel that I was being a responsible parent, and to gain an artificial trust in a doctor I was forced to rely on. I learned nothing about science, went with a majority opinion,, and that helped me to make a decision to balance risk. Managing our thoughts and decision making does not require education and facts. Its self awareness and allowing yourself to remain teachable. My 14 year old actually does this quite well. She's in middle school. So does our mechanic. He never finished high school. The surgeon later made the point to us, that the less formal schooling a patient had earned, the less likely they were to question his judgment. Interesting, and yet predictable. There is a correlation between education and insecurity. Someone who is less educated in a school system, for example, cannot compose a speech or writing that can be clearly understood. As long as they understand it, it is unimportant whether others do. It's not their path. Most of your points are relevant to world and social issues. I believe what you are saying is that if one does not educate themselves on the facts about the subject matter, then their opinions are less credible, or even irrelevant, compared to those who do. Aristotle once said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought, without accepting it". I believe you're point is that their insecurities from a lack of education leads them to follow the path of the "sheeple"; accepting without formulating their own educated opinion. The sheeple mentality is about self awareness, not the lack of education. The most uneducated people in the world can be self aware, knowing what "they know" and accepting "what they don't know". And the educated, often are lacking in any self awareness, feeling that "they know it all" and have over inflated self esteems and brimming with self confidence. They also foist their opinions on others, and cleverly lead the masses as well. These differences in intellectual ability and desire for information may challenge us, but in order to be frustrated by it, one must believe that they are wrong. I don't believe that judgment is ever acceptable. Everyone sees things from their own personal perspective. As you are entitled, so are they. Truth be told, we need less information, and less debate (haha) and more kindness and love. It makes no difference what color your "collar" is for your job. Its how you lead your life that matters in the end. The everyday interaction and the way you make people feel, not what you said or information you had in your brain. Society places the educated above the uneducated, and truth be told, the people to embrace in our society are not those on the worlds stage of information but the "givers" in society, and work from their heart to spread love and kindness. The person who loves...will change the world, and leave it much better than they found it. No education necessary for that.