BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is more likely that god exists than that he doesn't exist.

==The Negative Case== The emphasis here is on the "I" in "God doesn't know where I might see an invisible pink unicorn". If I can't see an invisible pink unicorn, then God doesn't know where I might see it, and thus God doesn't know everything. My limits have nothing to do with this. ==Drugs are God== There are many problems with this purely semantical argument. I will list the two most pressing. -Cocaine doesn't control reality. It controls perception. -The reference to the Vaccuum refers to false gods, or things meant to take God's place. My opponent is taking Pascal out of context. ==The Affirmative Case== My opponent has dropped all 61 of his arguments. I know yield the floor to my opponent. (yield- to give over http://dictionary.reference.com...)
It is more likely that god exists than that he doesn't exist.

I wasn't aware that professional athletes could challenge the laws of reality. It is not necessary for God to be omnipotent or omnibevolent. Con is making the argument that because God isn't good, he doesn't exist. This is rediculous, and in no way should be considered a part of this debate. Invisible: Unable to be seen; not visible to the eye This would mean that a tiny tiny IPU that is unable to be seen with even the most powerful microscope attached to your ceiling would be under the definition of invisible. Con is making the uneducated age old argument that because of his many inabilities, whether to understand or to see something, whatever he doesn't know doesn't exist. God is omniscient and has the ability to know where, if there is an IPU, you would see it. Con has decided that his room doesn't have a ceiling when he says "He also asserts that the IPU might be on my ceiling, but if it was, it wouldn't be in my room." I'm sorry for assuming that you would have a roof. CONTENTION: For the sake of this debate, cocaine could be considered a god. I retain my original definition of God. However, within that falls cocaine. Does it have more than natural attributes and powers required for human worship? The Urban Church and the Drug Culture--by Andrew Jones ["Romans 1 outlines more specifically the results of the Fall within mankind - a constant repression of God's revelation within and without themselves which results in substituting idols for the true God. Consequently, the Lord gives humanity over to their own wicked desire. Therefore, each human being is created for fellowship with God and deep-down knows it (cf. Pascal's "God-shaped vacuum") yet persistently puts something or someone else in God's place. This someone or something will take different shapes depending on an individual's or community's situation."] Cocaine, as in many tribal S American cultures, could be that something. And does it control reality? Yes-cocaine overdoses often end in sever hallucinations. This falls within the definition of God. I do not yield the floor to my opponent, I lend it to him for 3 days unless he should return it sooner. (READ MY OPPONENTS LAST SENTENCE) Yield: Give way to arguments, demands, or pressure
It is more likely that god exists than that he doesn't exist.

I reserve the right to challenge my opponent's definition of god, should he abuse it in a way so that it is applicable to phenomenal athletes. ==The Negative Case== My opponent has conceded that God can not be omnipotent or omnibenevolent. ===Omniscience=== A god could not know where in my room I might see an invisible pink unicorn. This is because (A) I cannot see anything invisible, and (B) an invisible pink unicorn cannot exist, being both invisible and pink. If God does not know this, then God is not all-knowing, and can not exist. Take note that my opponent's definition for God includes "God is all-knowing". My opponent's objections to this argument are weak. He asserts that I am limited, yet, even if I was limited, God should still know where I might see it. He also asserts that the IPU might be on my ceiling, but if it was, it wouldn't be in my room. ==PRO's ARGUMENTS== ===1 through 50=== I have shown all of my opponent's arguments to be fallacious. He has now dropped them. ===51 through 61=== (51) This argument is invalid because it relies on circular reasoning. There is no reason to assume Premise (51), God. (52) This argument is non-sequitur. In addition, premise (a) is non-applicable to the syllogism. (53) This argument is non-sequitur. In addition, premise (53) is non-applicable to the syllogism. (54) This argument is begging the question. There is no reason to assume Premise (a). (55) Argument from Ignorance. Again, the law of parsimony holds that it is more likely that God doesn't exist if there is no evidence either way. (56) This argument is non-sequitur. In addition, there is no reason to assume premise (b), that God is different. (57) This argument is non-sequitur. In addition, it is circular. Further, there is no reason to assume premise (b). (58) This argument is non-sequitur. The term 'God' appears in none of the premises or terms. The syllogism is invalid. (59) This relies on an Appeal to Consequences. The acceptability of the non-existence of God is unrelated to its truth. (60) This argument is non-sequitur. The term 'God' appears in none of the premises or terms. The syllogism is invalid. (61) This argument is begging the question. In addition, there is no reason to believe premise (a). I now yield to my opponent.
Given the exponential population growth of humans no one should care about the environment.

Food is not finite because it can be grown and reproduced. Oil is finite but there are very many other sources of energy that could be used. Water is finite but is "recycled" by nature and fresh water can be filtered out of the oceans. There are millions of acres of fertile land in the world that are not being used for farming which, if used, would greatly increase food production. There are millions of people in the world that do little to nothing to support their community, and if they would be put to work, then production/efficiency would greatly increase. We are nowhere near the end, the Earth (with our help) is capable of handling our growing population. As mentioned, we can take more drastic measures such as the one-child rule if necessary.
Given the exponential population growth of humans no one should care about the environment.

Water , oil and food are all finite and should be protected. However, the population of this Planet will soon exhaust all of these in its demands .The Elephant in the room is shouting but no one can here it. 9 billion people will soon be here. Don't bother about the future. Unless about 1 billion human beans wear a condom for a decade we aren't going anywhere sustainable. Forget green Issues.
Given the exponential population growth of humans no one should care about the environment.

Green ideas are not limited to recycling and we are arguing about other environmental things as well. My point stands that in order for ANYONE to survive, we need resources, and the environment is resources. If we put no effort into conserving our environment, then there is no hope. Think about the fact that most developed countries have sucked their land nearly dry of resources (or are in the process of doing so) and heavily rely on the import of natural resources from other countries. Without this import, even today's most powerful countries would be nothing within weeks. All power, wealth and life depends on resources, so if there are no resources, how can there be life?
Given the exponential population growth of humans no one should care about the environment.

Thank you for partly agreeing with my argument in that the future situation might be terrible but that us human beans will survive , though in smaller numbers. My point is why should I bother about any ecological , environmental fussing when we are all heading off to Hell in a hand cart . Unsustainable population growth is sooner than you think going to be a disaster on this Orb for all its inhabitants. Why recycle?
Given the exponential population growth of humans no one should care about the environment.

First, I would like to note that my opponent's logic is virtually the equivalent of "since a person is going to die anyway, might as well do drugs, it doesn't matter". We must try to conserve resources and our environment so we at least have time to research, discover and plan how we will manage in the future. One way to do so would be to stop buying/producing useless products that just waste resources. I'm sure that most people can remove half of the things found in their home and still live a comfortable life. My opponent mentions that there would be dramatic conflict. That may be true, but if our goal is to save the human race, then it doesn't matter. As long as someone comes out as the victor and survives, then humanity survives and technically, all is well. (I know it sounds terrible). Also, the countries that save resources now, would be at the top in such a conflict because, well, they would have the most resources. If countries start acting now by doing things such as building desalinization plants (facilities that filter salt-water into fresh water), then when the crisis strikes, things may not be as bad. In reality, water is the only problem, because it is not produced in nature (in significant quantities) and there is no substitute. We can create a substitute for fossil fuels and virtually any other kind of resource, but not water. That's why if we invest into desalinization plants (or other future technologies that perform the same function), humanity will survive. Of course a more extreme method to survive would to be use the "one-child rule" or something of the sort to curb the population. We must fight to survive, it is any organism's most basic instinct. If we don't fight then might as well just launch the nukes and save us some future misery.
THBT school violence should be included in a students record permanently

This new policy will not only incorporate discipline, but also implement a change. This change will prevent students from making further bad choices, knowing there is a consequence for their actions. Behavioral issues have always been a big problem in education and now we have found a "antigen" against violent crime itself. If we integrate this new policy into the education system, we cut down on violent crimes at the root. This policy will not only cut down on crime, but it will make life better for students, teachers ,parents and society.
THBT school violence should be included in a students record permanently

What you're saying is that we should let school violence continue, and expect the students to recognize their wrong doing. If this was the case then they wouldn't have done what they did in the first place . Imagine if this policy wasn't approved, then students would go through school and do whatever with out consequences. Now we have 16,17,18 year olds going into the world with no fear of authority, the law or anything. Then they feel they can do whatever, now for the first time in their life their being punished, because of you! they get to see first hand exactly how the due process system work. If we put into them now that for every action there's an reaction. No crime goes unpunished now we have succeeded, we just prevented about a thousand further crimes. Most convicts wouldn't be in the position their in now if they knew that there would be an punshimsnt for their crimes. This new policy can and will prevent these things from happening, it won't allow anyone to slip through the cracks and fall into the life of violent crimes.
THBT school violence should be included in a students record permanently

NO! Why ? cause this will disturb your rehabilitation If you just stop them rehabilitating to have a better thoughts they won't be able to recognize the problem the crime thy have commited. While their irrational ages they don't know whats bad or good but because one day they will become rational they will start regretting and but what will happen ! Too late! that is why we need to give them a chance rather then destroying their future.
THBT school violence should be included in a students record permanently

Crime rates are off the charts! Crime has become more and more popular among the youth. If we don't take the necessary course of action now, then society has failed. If children are punished now for their actions, then we can prevent further incidents in the future. It's vital, that children know certain actions can not just slip past without their being an appropriate course of action taken. We would be doing an absolute injustice if we allowed kids to go around and do whatever and let them think its okay. I'm one hundred percent for this new policy.
THBT school violence should be included in a students record permanently

By having these kinds of policies yes it may destroy the future of kids it will be very efficient. Why? I have two aspects first it would decrease future perpetrators. A lot of juvenile delinquents become criminals later on and by decreasing the amount young criminals by deterrence it will definitely decrease future perpetrators. Also a simple crime caused by not rational thoughts may develop into future big crimes. And my second aspect is that this will motivate the parents because this policy might destroy the kids future.
"spending on poor" as primary cause of federal government spending problems is a misconcep

Medicare is not a self-sustaining program. Medicare: http://www.seniorcorps.org... Social Security is, technically, but one does not get out of it what one puts in. This wealth redistribution is harmful to investment, which of course means less taxes from the wealthy (taxes which make up most of the Federal Government's Income), and therefore a wider deficit, which inevitably leads to a bigger debt. These things are most certainly 'spending on the poor', and use up most of the Federal Budget. Even without Social Security, welfare spending still leads as the majority source of expenditure in the US Government, followed by Defense, VA Benefits, Debt Interest, and Transportation. Though Defense takes up a lot of money, VA and Transportation pale in comparison to the amount spent on Entitlements. Also, I haven't missed any point. The argument was whether or not 'Spending on the Poor' was a problem in government spending, not whether it exists. I think I've firmly established that it does, and then I showed why such spending was a problem. I went a little further and gave an example of how to fix it, sure, but I haven't averted the point. Spending on welfare is a problem in the United States, one that is not easily fixable, but one that must be fixed.
"spending on poor" as primary cause of federal government spending problems is a misconcep

con confuses the the use of the world "welfare". welfare generically might mean social security and such.... but it mostly refers to hand outs to parents with kids, and it is usually limited to a few years. even if we took the generic use of the word, con misses the point. as i said in the last post, social security, medicare etc are paid by pay roll taxes and are so far self sustaining. this is not "spending on the poor" as is the point of the thread, but spending on everyone's future when they are at retirement age. also, if con wants to argue we should reform 'entitlements' by all means, as we can make significant strides in our fiscal health if we do, and it is necessary. but this is not the thread to do it. we are focusing on 'spending on the poor', and con has clearly missed the point.
"spending on poor" as primary cause of federal government spending problems is a misconcep

While one cannot argue that government mismanagement isn't a huge part of debt problem, we also have to look at what we are spending money on, or at least claim to be spending money on. Welfare is a large, perhaps the largest, part of the US Budget, and a lot of it is, in truth, just money being thrown at a fire in hopes that it will extinguish it. What We spend on Welfare https://www.nationalpriorities.org... In this picture, we have the 2014 Federal Budget. As we can see, while Military is a huge spending area, that most certainly needs to be cut, it is not nearly the largest. Social Security, Unemployment, and Health Services, which are all forms of government welfare, account for 58% of the budget. Education, Science, the EPA, and Administration don't add up to nearly as much. What this means, of course, is that over half of the money the US Federal Government collects, is going to Welfare Programs. Now, I'm not necessarily saying that there's nothing wrong with a social safety net, but the money that we are spending just isn't doing anything. It isn't helping the poor like we hoped it would. Throughout the 50s and 60s, the effects of LBJ's Great Society welfare program, poverty was decreasing by as much as 1% a year. http://upload.wikimedia.org... As we see in the graph above, since the introduction of Welfare in the late 60s/early 70s, poverty has stagnated. Despite our best efforts, and many Americans giving as much as 1/8th of their paycheck to Welfare, some of whom struggle themselves, we have not significantly improved poverty in America. Our efforts have been for naught. Now, imagine if we just cut back. With our current budget deficit, we'd have enough to start paying back our debt, AND make a solid investment in Education and Science. Rather than enslave our children to lives in which they must pay our debts for us, we could begin to create a country in which parents give to their children, rather than take from them with debt. We could invest in infrastructure, and this, combined with a much better system of education, and investments in Science and Research, would create a standard of living that would put the US at the top of the world once more.
"spending on poor" as primary cause of federal government spending problems is a misconcep

"spending on poor" as primary cause of federal government spending problems is a misconception -one random example, food stamps are like a percent or two of our budget. in the united states, as a federal matter, a standard adult is entitled to nothing except food. -the idea of a run away welfare nation is also a myth, given the feds only help with cash assistance if the state wants it to and still to a limited degree, and in a lot of states cash assistance might last for a few years tops and only if you have unsupported kids. here in the USA homeless kids are not unheard of by any means. this website expands a few more expenditures on the poor... but even it with with the formal analysis doesn't put spending at much more than ten percent. http://www.motherjones.com... this graph breaks down what we spend money on. http://www.federalbudget.com... we could break major spending into somewhat equal sections, general spending, health spending, social security, national debt, defense. the health spending is a bit bigger, but all are roughly ball parked the same. most general spending is on things like EPA or adminstrative stuff... not poor stuff. SS is a middle class and everyone issue, and in theory is suppose to be self supporting by pay roll taxes. same with medicare, which is probably at least half of the health spending. these are rough estimates. but enough to show it's not poor people as our problems and "welfare" etc. it's mostly governmetn mismanagement, borrowing against programs, not paying for what we spend, cutting taxes while running deficits, not keeping overall spending lower, etc.
"spending on poor" as primary cause of federal government spending problems is a misconcep

I highly doubt Pro even read what I wrote, or is just being facetious and dishonest. But, I'll write a conclusion anyway. The US Federal Government is massively in debt. MASSIVELY. We have so much debt, that if everyone in the United States contributed all of their production to paying it off, we could not even pay it off in a year. This debt is haunting, of course, but the issue goes deeper than that. We are pushing it onto our children to pay off. By forcing them to use their money to fix our problems, we are damning them to, essentially, slavery. Just imagine buying a house, car, and a TV, and then telling your children to pay it off, because you just don't have enough money. Imagine the shame you would feel, for forcing your children to fix your problems. That is exactly what the US Federal Debt has done. Over half of the US Budget goes to entitlements. Unemployment, Healthcare, EBT, etc. And, while a lot of these are good programs, particularly EBT, others make it nearly impossible to have a sustainable budget. Even if it seems like we need these programs now, just wait until the US is spending half it's money just paying interest on debt. Then our children will really need those programs, but we'll be broke. Completely. So, if we just cut back on entitlements a little, encouraged private charity above welfare, and of course closed down a couple Military bases, we could begin to reverse this trend. Maybe, we could even give our kids a little extra. So, I beseech you. Welfare now will mean sure death later. Cutting it off may hurt some people, but it's much better than the alternative.