BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are no arguments for God that cannot be refuted.

I accept this challenge. Per Pro's opening statement, if he can refute my argument, he wins. Otherwise, I win. I'll lay out my argument very simply and defend it in the next round. Introduction I am defending the Christian God of the Holy Bible, who is best defined as [1]: There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. I realize the definition is verbose, but it's a more complete depiction of the God Christians profess and do not wish to railroaded into a debate on the character of God himself. Argument This is a logical argument. Pro must use logical laws to refute this argument. In order for the refutation to be meaningful, logical laws must be abstract and absolute. In order for logical laws to be abstract, they must be the product of thought, i.e., a mind. In order for this mind to produce absolute logical laws, it must be immutable. In order for this mind to be immutable, it must transcend nature (i.e., supernatural) and be unchanging. The God of the Holy Bible meets the necessary precondition for an unchanging, supernatural mind. In order for Pro to refute this argument, God must exist. Conclusion Pro can only refute this argument if it is true. Ergo, he cannot refute it. Sources http://www.reformed.org...
We Should Celebrate Colombus Day.

Voters, I know this has not been much of a debate. In fact, it wasn't a debate at all. I just want to state my stance to the voters to garner their opinions. I believe that Columbus Day is a symbolic holiday in which we celebrate the peak of the renaissance, and the improvements of technology that came along with it - medicine, government, etc. I also believe that Columbus Day is an important part of our past - and shouldn't be eradicated from calendars. Famous songs, poems, and other forms of media were created to celebrate Columbus Day. The Pledge of Allegiance is an example. I would also like to state that my opponent's argument is inconsistent. If Columbus Day should not be celebrated because of the treatment of the Natives, should we rename cities like Columbus? Should we dismantle statutes of Columbus?No. Although Columbus did not discovered America, he was the leader of the voyage that put it into the limelight in Europe. He might not have spotted it first - but I believe that we need to remember his braveness, his stamina, his wanting to continue on. If he had been to afraid to cross the Atlantic, America would be much different. No one can deny this; Columbus made a dent in history, and we should remember this by celebrating Columbus Day. Voters, please vote for who's argument is more logical, who had better conduct. I participated in every round. My opponent forfeited two of the three rounds. I provided reasons for why I believe we need to celebrate Columbus Day. My opponent provided very little fact and cited few to no resources. Voters, vote for who won.
We Should Celebrate Colombus Day.

Columbus did not discover America. According to Zinn's "Problems in U.S. History", one of the sailors working for him named Rodrigo de Triana spotted land first, but Columbus claimed he had so he could earn the reward of 10,000 maravedis. One could argue that since he was the one who lead the voyage, he should get the credit, but he was not the first voyage to spot the Americas. The Native Americans had been on the land for thousands of years before and even Leif Erickson had spotted the land before. Columbus only gets the credit for bringing America to other countries' attention, but even this is overshadowed by his mistreatment of the Native Americans.
Resolved: High School Public Forum Debate Resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues

Hello, I am Public_Agenda and I would like to start by thanking my opponent for offering this excellent debate over the resolution, "Resolved: High School Public Forum debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues." I will be representing the affirmative side of this argument, and thus will be proving the validity of this statement throughout the debate through my contentions, rebuttals, and rebuilds. I would like to start with definitions, both the ones my opponent has laid out for me as well as a few of my own. I accept my opponent's definition of "High School Public Forum Resolutions," and would like to expand upon it by emphasizing that this debate will only discuss the issue in reference to formal Public Forum debate and its implications. I do not, however, accept my opponent's definition of "confront," as his definition makes no sense in the context of the topic. My opponent has defined "confront" as "to oppose." However, from my experience of going to a tournament with this topic only this previous weekend, the point of the topic was to debate the validity of debates over sensitive religious issues, as well as their implications, and based on that to debate over whether or not sensitive religious issues are acceptable as Resolutions in a Public Forum setting. My opponent's definition of "confront" would suggest a topic that is saying, "High School Public Forum debate resolutions should go against or oppose sensitive religious issues," which is not appropriate for the debate at hand, as it suggests that Public Forum Debate should bring these issues into awareness. Hence, the definition of "confront" shall be changed to the following: "To be brought up for debate or discussion." Based on this definition, I will be proving that High School Public debate resolutions should in no way address sensitive religious issues. Next, I accept my opponent's definitions of "sensitive religious issues," but would like to make the following expansions upon them. For the purpose of this resolution, "sensitive" shall be defined as anything that is capable of seriously offending, irritating, annoying, or causing serious emotional harm. "Religious issues" shall be defined as any topic that significantly involves religion, and religion shall be defined as a formal institution of beliefs and systems centering upon the worship of a god, spirit, or metaphysical entity. With these definitions now complete, I eagerly await my opponent's first argument.
Resolved: High School Public Forum Debate Resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues

Because this is the november Public Forum resolution, i will try my best to conform, to Public Forum format. Round 1: Definitions Round 2: Case Round 3: Rebuttal/Questions Round 4: Summary/Questions Round 5: Final Focus As the Negation I believe that debating sensitive religious issues should be allowed in Public Forum Definitions: High School Public Forum Resolutions: Resolutions released by National Forensics League every month to Public Forum. Confront: Oppose Sensitive religious issues: A viable, controversial topic that pertains to religion.
Schools Teach Irrelevant Topics

We have all of these classes for a reason. Yes it teaches you determination. But we have to listen for what the school says. If you don't like a policy or required class, go to speak at a school board meeting or with the other students in our grade and write a petition. A lot of classes, you say should be optional, shouldn't be, physical education is important, because it teaches you how to keep healthier lifestyle and stay fit. Technology is another important one because, we are living in a world where you are constantly changing and connecting with others. I would like to ask the voters, not to be biased towards my argument because of pro school stance.
Schools Teach Irrelevant Topics

I don"t mean to take out math or language or those kinds of essential classes. If you ever work in a company of any sorts, you use math to help determine profits. If you want to speak fluently, you take language. But when schools force you to learn technology or art, it"s an optional class. If you"re not bad at it, yes, you can still take it. Some classes, however, certain people can"t do whatsoever. Schools require students to study these courses for a year when much less is actually needed. Allow students to take two or three classes as a necessity, like math and language, teach essential things like home economics and financial literature, and then let them choose the rest, like art, music, technology, physical education, et cetera. Don"t force them to learn so many things when they"ll use so few. "With the class that you don't like or have a gift for, just try and work hard with it." You have a point here: to try at the things you don"t like or can"t do because that teaches life lessons such as determination. But you fail to realize that if a student doesn"t like it, they will not try. No matter how good the teacher or engaging the lesson plan, someone will not like that class.
Schools Teach Irrelevant Topics

In life, we have to things that we don't want. Like I hate math class , but I still study and try my best. If your schools are not offering home ECO or other class like that, ask about it, go to a school board meeting. With the class that you don't like or have a gift for, just try and work hard with it. May be you liked in the future. I understand that some kids may add a dislike to school or stress. But it doesn't hurt to learn it. Maybe your friends may like some thing you don't or may be your child, would be interested in that subject and you can share or @ least know a bit about it. But we ,as a society, want our children to reach to their highest. A part of that, is expressing parts of life, that they don't like, (ex, math or art or music). So they know how to Handle things that they don't like when they are older.
Schools Teach Irrelevant Topics

I can understand what you mean. School does want you to become well-rounded, so they include a variety of different subjects for you to study. And yes, in high school you can choose your classes, but before that, there"s not much of a choice. And then you must study classes in which you are neither interested nor skilled, simply because laws require you do so. Also, not every school includes Home Ec or other "missing parts." This leaves you without the options for other classes. If I told a guidance counselor or principal that I didn"t want to take art, they would say that it was required that I take it to become a well-rounded student that had interests in many different subjects. Forcing kids to learn certain things may add stress or cause them to dislike school in reality. All of the other classes add enough onto a student"s workload. Why add another, unnecessary, burden?
Schools Teach Irrelevant Topics

As a student, I understand where you are coming from. But the school's job is to educate you as a well rounded informed citizen. Schools are a place where you discover your interests and hobbies as well. But they have to follow state and federal regulations and standards. Also, in most high schools, you get pick which classes you want. So if you don't like an class, like art or music. Don't take it. I also see some problems with how schools leave out important things like how to do taxes and cook and clean. But a lot of Schools have adopted classes like financial literacy and home ECO, to fill in the missing parts. If you don't like or understand a class talk to our school guidance counselor or principal.
Schools Teach Irrelevant Topics

Is it absolutely necessary to know that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell? Or that the Egyptians mummified their dead for the Afterlife? Well, unless you are planning for a career in science or history, not necessarily. Schools today teach irrelevant things. As students we do not need to know many things. Yes, we need to know how to read and do math and learn basic skills such as teamwork and hard work, but many of our lessons are useless. Social media will often joke upon this with questions such as, "What are taxes and how do I pay them?" with responses similar to the first sentence of this writing. The truth is this: school teaches us more than what we need, and less than what we need. There are many things we do not need to know. In technology classes, for example, students learn how to build robots, work with lasers, and construct sturdy bridges. But what if you do not want to work with any of these? What if you want a career in art or music? In later years, that becomes an elective; however, I want to chose what I want now. In fact, most of the lessons we need to learn we learn from our parents. How to change tires, for example. Or how to cook and clean. Sometimes we barely have any training for the most important things, such as taxes. They change how much you spend and how much you earn. If you don"t know how to work them, you don"t know how much money is deducted from your paycheck- that"s incredibly helpful to know. Some people may have known "Biztown" at some point in middle school. That field trip was my only experience with taxes and "real life" problems to date. I understand that school can help with certain things. Group projects teach teamwork, and music and art classes can help you become well-rounded. But if you"re not talented, bored, or simply uninterested in those topics, you have a problem.
Gay marriage should be legal

I'll keep this one simple.This debate is (quite obviously) on the subject of whether or not gay marriages should be legal.Round 1 will be for acceptance, with no arguments posted.Round 2 will be for arguments, no rebuttals of Pro's arguments by Con yet.Round 3 will be for rebuttals of round 2 arguments and for adding new arguments.Round 4 will be for rebuttals of round 3 arguments and for adding new arguments.Round 5 will be for final rebuttals with no new arguments.Now, since this seems to be the ongoing trend in my debates as of late, let me get this one thing clear:If you're going to forfeit every round, don't accept the debate.I apologize for having to be a jackass in getting this across, but in over half of the debates I am currently in, my opponent has forfeited almost every round. It's a necessary precaution to say that I at least tried.Now, for the specifics of the debate. The only thing that I will not accept from my opponent is the use of any religious texts as a source. This is a secular case for gay marriage. I support this rule with the establishment clause:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . ."This would mean that if religion were the only reason to prohibit gay marriage, it would be unconstitutional, as it would be a law respecting an establishment of religion.That being said, burden of proof lies on Con to provide any (non-religious) reason that gay marriage should be illegal."Legal" will be defined, in this case, as being fully recognized by federal and state governments. If you would like to further discuss the rules of this debate or ask me to add definitions or change some rules, please discuss this in the comments section before accepting the debate. Thank you.
It makes no sense to ask for scientific evidence for Gods existence.

1) Creationism vs. Evolution In this topic you fail to see the direct correlation between proving evolutions theory as a means to prove if The God of Christianity existed. It is a means to find out about the super natural. Your claim is one that has holes. It would be as I said 2 does not equal 12. Just looking at the numbers in there raw state would be incorrect. Rather 2 does equal 12, if 2 were added to 10. To actually prove God exists one does need science to work with history. Creationism also relies on scientific evidence to prove the existence of God. When they claim that a rush of water, Noah's flood, created the Grand Canyon they are using scientific evidence to in turn prove the bible was accurate, in turn proving Gods existence. http://www.grandcanyonflood.com... A) It is nonsense, and off topic to respond to A, B) This too is off topic a bit, but you still miss the point. Scientific proof is the only way to prove history is correct in terms of biblical accuracy. It may not be the jump off in which a theologian would start but would be a key factor in proving God to the world. 2) "Jesus is god." A) "The historical documentation of his existence, though substantiated by science, remains as historical evidence." …. But still needed is scientific proof to sustain it, therefore solidifying my argument. B) "That he had a supernatural connection is beyond science." It is not beyond science to prove if Jesus was God or not. You would not need science to prove if he talked to "God" or had a "relationship" with "God", he was claiming to be "God". A much larger significance then just a small super natural that is not beyond contestation. Everything that he did would be backed by history and needed to be proved by science, proving that scientific evidence would indeed be needed to prove that this guy was super naturally "God". 3) A) "Science may play the secondary role of substantiating" In playing a role it is therefore needed and warranted that we use it to have a percentage of proof. "Even though we may have a video tape of an apparition and objects moving, this constitutes documentation and evidence, but not proof nor scientific evidence." But science would play a role in determining if the tape had been spliced or not. 4) "Quantum theory as a model for proof in my last debate." Still, this is now. And you seem to be losing your debate, http://www.debate.org.... I also am not claiming that there is "sufficient evidence", as you did, just that it plays a part in super natural things. Therefore scientific evidence should not be disbarred from helping to prove Gods existence. If you were trying to debate a reversal to your loss then you should have worded it exactly like you did then. Your lack of attention to detail makes this debate an extremely different debate.
It makes no sense to ask for scientific evidence for Gods existence.

The position of pro is backing, "It makes no sense to ask for scientific evidence for Gods existence. " God is not defined in a proper way so I will only be able to assume since he is from America and conservative, he is talking about The God of Christianity. Creationism. You claim of making no sense to ask for scientific evidence for god's existence but you would have to discount evolution vs. creationism. Christians believe that god exists, evidence of us as humans, and the beauty of the world… Then would it not be important to have scientific evidence that God created the earth and us. Therefore it makes sense to have scientific proof that evolution is wrong and God does exist, therefore creating us. Jesus. Jesus is god. (Theoretically) it would be important to the Christian religion that they could prove Jesus' existence though scientific evidence. Yes, if there were evidence, than science would play a role in evaluating its authenticity and accuracy. History does play a role as well, but so does science. Therefore scientific proof is needed to credit god's existence. I know that you claim it is nonsense to try to force supernatural into science, as the two do not mix… but you miss the point in which people ask for scientific proof. If a document came out explaining Jesus miracles then I would ask for scientific proof to check its accuracy. I would ask for scientific proof to tell me it is real… in turn asking for scientific proof that god exist. .. a very much needed reason to have scientific proof that God exists. Scientific evidence would force people to believe in God. The goal of God is for everyone to follow him. Therefore it makes sense to Christians having scientific proof… as well as logical people not believing in God if it were not for scientific evidence. Therefore it does make sense to continue to ask for scientific evidence for Gods existence. I will let you write a rebuttal to that as we do have 4 rounds to debate this in.
It makes no sense to ask for scientific evidence for Gods existence.

It makes no sense to seek scientific evidence for supernatural existence. If what is meant by "scienific evidence" requires confirmation by repeatable experiments, then by definition of supernatural, a system that is at a higher hierarchical level than the natural, confirmation by experiment is impossible. This is to say, the natural system as the sub-system is unable to access the supernatural system as the super-system. In Causal terms, there is nothing we can do in the natural system as a cause that will direct or require an effect to happen in the natural system from the supernatural system. The acknowledgement of any debate concerning "supernatural" and "God", is accepting the general concept of a larger system, being described as supernatural, that is not subjected to the certain sub-system, being described as natural. This does not require acknowledgement of the existence of the particular larger system named "supernatural", but only the relationship, if it were to exist. The demand by Con for Causal Evidence is equally opposed by Pro in stating that this is impossible by definition. The statement by Con that all we know is the natural system is opposed by Mathematics which is a formal system, not a natural system. Consider the nature of an unary relationship such as is the relationship of an astromer with the stars. He may only observe the light and movements the stars make. There is no direct effect on the stars that may be caused by the astromer. He is only able to observe and compare. Consider the nature of a binary relationship such as between a parent and a child. Though the child pleads and whines, his wishes are often ignored. Though the parents speaks or responds, the child does not always understands and rarely comprends the response. The only potential for experience of the supernatural in the natural system is the effects whose direct cause resides wholly within the supernatural. The natural has no direct control over the supernatural. No direct control over the effects cause by the supernatural. The properties of that portion of scientific evidence which requires a repeatable experiment for confirmation are only available within the same hierachical system level. Thus, if we were to consider evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm, it must be of some other nature. Eros for your correction.