BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian God could still exist with all the evil and suffering in the world

While I do allow for minor changes in the resolution you cannot complete change it. The arguement that God could not exist without evil is an interestic topic but it has nothing to do with the resolution of this debate. I will therefore give my reasons why God could still exist even with evil and suffering: All suffering comes from sin and evil. You might say why did God create sin and evil? Well, God didn't create sin, it came into the world when He gave humans free choice and they disobeyed Him. You might ask why didn't God just create humans to always choose good? Well think about if you pushed a button on a Barbie and every time it said, "I love you" How meaningful is that I love you? God did create potential for evil but it only came into being when we rejected God's ways. You may then ask didn't God know about the potential consequences of free choice? Well think about any relationship you have had. Even if its just a friendship isn't there a chance that your friend is going to hurt you or walk away completely? However, you still make friendships knowing there is that potential. Think about the famous story of the bear, the hunter, and God. Your walking in the woods and a bear has his leg stuck in a trap. You go to help the bear but every time you get close he things you are going to hurt him so he fights you. Then you have to shoot him with a tranquilizer gun. Now he really thinks you are out to hurt him. Then to get his leg out of the trap you have to push it in deeper to release the tension on the spring. If the bear was even conscious he would ask all the more, "Why are you making me suffer." Now, how can you be sure it is not like that with God? The most extreme suffering was Jesus dyeing on the cross and, from a Christian perspective we see the good that came out of that. You might say well why do evil people hurt other and get away with it. Well the fact is the Bible says they won't get away. While a skeptic would most likely not accept that they would say, "Well if God could stop suffering why doesn't he do it right now." I would tell them they are. In 2 Peter 3:9 it says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." He is delaying everything because of his love for us.
The Christian God could still exist with all the evil and suffering in the world

Well of course the Christian God could still exist without the evil and suffering in the world. But the evil and suffering will never stop. But here's the thing; No matter how thin you make a pancake, it will always have two sides. For example: With Man comes woman. With left, comes right. With up, comes down. And of course, With the Christian God, Comes the Devil. So my argument today is going to be that yes, The Christian God can exist with all the evil and suffering in the world, but cannot exist without it. Contention 1: Everything that has a beginning, has a cause. For example, if you believe that god created created the universe, then you must believe that the devil, (Evil and suffering) Was created along with it. 'Then said God, Let be light and was light. And saw God the light that good (it was) and separated God between the light and the darkness.' When that quote was stated in the bible, it shows that light was good. Well then what was dark? Evil. Everything has an opposite. OF COURSE The Christian God could still exist with all the evil and suffering in the world. Because according to the bible, he does. Now, I'm not taking sides on religion, as I'm an antagonist. I would love to see proof that god really does exist. And if he doesn't, well then go figure Christians. Glad you wasted your life worshiping something not even real. I believe that the resolution in question should definitely be reworded. As anything is possible. And the word 'could' makes it pretty much un-arguable. Now, what I would say if I was pro? According to godandscience.org, God created the universe as a temporary testing site for creatures to choose to love Him or reject Him.. The Christian definition of evil is anything done by one of God's spirit beings (humans or angels) against Him (or His created beings). God created Man to see what they would do on their own. He has no interference in their life. So therefore, with god not interfering, it is not him directly that is causing the evil and suffering. He has absolutely no part of it. He just observes. This shows that yes, the christian god could still exist with all the evil and suffering in the world.
The Christian God could still exist with all the evil and suffering in the world

Some skeptics say that the Christian God who is all powerful and all loving could not allow evil and suffering. Usually the argument is something like: Either God is all powerful and doesn't care or He cares, but is not all powerful. My opponent does not have to use this argument, I was just using it as an example. Ill will give reasons why the Christian God could still exist with even with evil and suffering in the world. My opponent can either use the first round for acceptance and clarification of rules or they can do that and post their argument. It is completely up to them. Thank you
Resolved: The USFG should build a border fence along the US-Mexico Border

No trolling.No semantics.No profanities.No Machine gunning/shotgunning arguments.All sources must be in the debate round or easily accessable by a direct link. R1: AcceptanceR2: CaseR3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals and closingDefinitions:The US Border patrol has various obstacles erected on the Mexico-US Border. The current state of the border wall can be viewed here [http://www.fairus.org...]. For this debate, we will be focusing on fencing; specifically, the completion and improvement of current fencing in order to complete a border fence along the entire border with the purpose of reducing illegal immigration.
media killing judicial activities.

"It is devastating to acknowledge the fact that we live in a country where the killing of a deer is a punishable offence, while the murderer of an innocent girl goes scot free!!" OK, so I found a news story (although not great coverage, it's still enough): http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com... Here, it seems that the verdict was at the fault of the prosecution. The police force did a terrible job of getting witnesses. Since all evidence used must be in a court, the defendant(s) is/are "innocent until proven guilty", and the prosecution provided no solid testimonies, how can you expect the judicial system to rule in their favor? My point about jury selection still remains uncontested.
media killing judicial activities.

"It is devastating to acknowledge the fact that we live in a country where the killing of a deer is a punishable offence, while the murderer of an innocent girl goes scot free!!" When did this happen? Can you show me where you saw this? Either way it doesn't support your position. Anyway, all I have to do is give one example of how the media is killing a judicial activity. Jury selection is a judicial activity. Through the media, people form a biased opinion on a crime, thus rendering them ineligible for jury duty. So the media is killing jury selection.
media killing judicial activities.

It is devastating to acknowledge the fact that we live in a country where the killing of a deer is a punishable offence, while the murderer of an innocent girl goes scot free!! It is a mockery of our judicial system to say the least. which seems to be blind in more ways than one and open to manipulation by the high-profiled and wealthy i guess u all know i m talkin abt jessica lal murder case it was media who helped 2 solve the case n we are sayin that media is killing judicial activities strange isn't???
Human Cloning

Human Cloning could elimante defective genes. Having defective genes elimated means that it could prevent defect in generation to come. Damage to the DNA line will also decrease. According to the Human Cloning Foundation, "the average human person carries eight defective genes inside them. Such defective genes allow people to become sick when they ould otherwise remain healthy"(HCF 2). Defective genes result in cases such as down's syndrome, tay-sachs disease, and cystic fibrosis. If we could elimante this all together with the help of human cloning there would be no more defective genes. http://healthresearchfunding.org... http://www.humancloning.org...
Human Cloning

Perhaps to some it is considered "worth it". But to others it can be seen as "playing God". It's believed by many that God created men, and gave man the ability to reproduce. He did not intend for man to be created using science (http://nocloneme.tripod.com...). It is considered to be going against the wishes of God. And actually, it is even believed by some that clones are not able to feel due to the fact that they were not created by God (http://humancloningproject.weebly.com...).
Human Cloning

It is risky yes, but why turn down the opportunity to saves lives? With human cloning we can cure cancer, help infertile males/females, reverse heart attacks, eliminate defective genes, make Alzheimer's and diabetes curable. Stem cells can be grown to produce organs and tissue to replace damaged cells. There won't be anymore worry of rejecting tissue by the immune system. Human cloning has its downs but in the end it is worth it.http://www.genome.gov...
Human Cloning

While that is a significant step, the procedure is risky to say the least. There are risks to the clone itself, along with the nucleus and ovum donor, and the woman who carries the embryo. Countless clone attepmts failed, killing the clone even before Doly was successfully cloned. Also, clones have a shorter life expectancy than normal humans because the cells they were created from were taken from an adult. This is unfair to the clone (http://as.wvu.edu...).
Human Cloning

Although my opponent makes a valid point. Scientist are working to improve human cloning. "Human cloning has been used to produce early embryos, marking a "significant step" for medicine" (US scientists). Scientist are also working on curing cancer wth human cloning. Scientist believe they could switch cells on and off. It would help the understanding in differentiation of cancerous cells. http://www.standardmedia.co.ke...http://www.humancloning.org...
Human Cloning

The failure rate of human cloning is extremely high. The success rate is a slim .1 to 3 percent. For every thousand attempts at cloning a human, only thirty are successful, if they are lucky (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...). The failure can be caused by the egg and the nucleus not being compatible with each other, pregnancy failure, or the egg not being able to grow correctly (http://cosmos.ucdavis.edu...). Even scientists that have succeeded in cloning a type of animal often fail trying to clone another, proving the inconsistency of the procedure, even with experience (http://www.nytimes.com...).
Human Cloning

Cloning doesn't mean an exact replica of an human. Clones have the same DNA but they are not the same person. Clones grow up in a different environment and have different experiences. Therefore humans aren't seen as a "blueprint". Anyway human cloning can be used to reverse heart attacks. Heart attacks are the number one leading killer of America. Scientist believe cloning humans healthy heart cells and injecting them into the areas of the heart that have been damaged could reverse the heart attack.
Human Cloning

Human cloning can "give the gift of life", however it also reduces the value of it. Cloning humans can make it seem like humans are nothing more than just blueprints for clones. People will be seen as replaceable, which belittles the worth of human life. On top of that, it is possible that having clones as a regular in society could cause new divisions. Clones could either be outcasted due to fact that that were created differently, or they can be seen as superior to average humans (http://healthresearchfunding.org...).
The Existence of Time Travel Would Invalidate Free Will

Resolution: The existence of time travel would invalidate free will. I am pro, which means that I will argue the resolution is true. Con must argue that the existence of time travel would not invalidate free will. Round 1 is acceptance only. Other than that, there is no debate structure, but it should be remembered that making new arguments in the last round is generally frowned upon. Time Travel - the movement of persons to a different point in time, be it in the future or past. Free Will - "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate" (https://www.google.com...)
The Existence of Time Travel Would Invalidate Free Will

Okay, lots of moving parts...So your claim, as I understand it is that time travel to the future, specifically, undermines the concept of free will, as if a future instance of reality exists, via experience or observation, then the future has already been mapped out, as it were. So if we were to run with your scenario, I think it would have to violate natural laws in order to operate. And I expect that you have not dismissed/modified natural laws for this future to exist (except objects travelling faster than the speed of light). So being bound to such laws in regards to the where/when we are, would pan out as:1. If one could travel or observe oneself in an immutable (already existent) future:A. then it implies that the same matter can simultaneously occupy two places in time (your constant)...which is frowned upon by sane people and scientists alike. B. It also implies, oddly enough, that the two distinct you's created by time travel would be able to rejoin/occupy the same place and time in that future, which is also violates another natural laws regarding matter that has a physical presence. (e.g., Pauli exclusion principle) My reasoning for this is that matter and time are only relevant because of causality/cause and effect/events... So the present you would be different from the future you, as causal existence has not been able to fulfill through time, making your past and future selves distinct. And two objects cannot occupy the same point in spacetime...So my offering would be that time is not the constant, but causality is. So if we found a point in the future, it doesn't imply that we have just jumped a few points on a permanent, linear timeline, but rather, simply moved to a different point on an infinitive grid, and that our causality would follow us to through time, rather than keep going in a straight line rather we are there or not. Lol i.e., we must to be present somewhere in the universe for happening occur (to us). And I don't believe time travel would remove us from the universe, as "matter is never destroyed/created, it only changes form" sort of thing, So as long we are matter, we are subject to causality, even if we can manipulate the fabric of time...And as causality follows us, then we are still very much capable of free will.Your scenario seems to suffocate itself somewhat, because the same conditions that would make a predetermined future conceivable, would also make time travel implausible...at least as i conceive it.And lastly, why must we even assume that to see our future means that it is immutable.... Can it not be the case of the ghost of Christmas future, i.e., that it is just the trajectory based on current actions? ::shrugs shoulders::I hope you understand what I'm saying...my mind is aflame trying to pin down so many variables...lolLet me know what you think!!!
The Existence of Time Travel Would Invalidate Free Will

Looking at some of my opponent's debates, I see they are a competent, skilled debater, unlike most of the people I've been debating my last few debates. Anyway, onward! My argument for this is quite simple. Imagine being at your computer and opening up a time travel program. You set it to exactly one day from now, press a button, and BAM! You're in the future. You've also proven that free will is false. How? Simply put, if you can travel to different points in time, some of them in the future, then they must be set in stone. If future points in time are definite enough that they can be traveled to, then by traveling to them you are proving that whatever series of events lead to the exact moment in time that you are traveling to are destined to happen. In essence, they are forced to exist because the future is definite enough to be reached. This same argument works even for just looking into the future - if the future can be looked into, then it must be definite and necessary. Therefore, the events leading up to it must happen and cannot be avoided, thereby invalidating free will. With that, I turn the debate over to my opponent.
The notion that Stalin caused the death of millions of people

My position: I will be arguing that Stalin is not responsible for the deaths of millions of people who died in the Ukrainian famine, or "holodomor" as other people call it. My position will be that a famine happened. I will even be arguing that Stalin attempted to combat the problem of the famine. The holodomor was supposedly a case where millions of people died and people who believe Stalin was behind it, believe he purposely put in reforms that would lead to worsening the famine with the intent to kill people through starvation. Most people believe 7-10 million people died from the famine, but I will be showing that it was quite possible fewer people died from it. Opponent's position: I want my opponent to argue that a specific estimate of people were killed in the famine(I would recomment the 7-10 million number, though they may argue for whatever number they wish), and to argue that Stalin was responsible for this. Now, let's move onto the debate since we should be clear on what each contendor will be arguing for. Rules:1) No ad hominem, insults, or personal attacks2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total you see here minus one, since I am not using round 1 for argument. I would like my opponent to begin their arguments in round 1, since I believe the "innocent until proven guilty" principle applies here and it should be assumed Stalin is innocent of this until proven otherwise. So, my opponent should provide evidence that Stalin was behind the deaths of millions in round 1. They should then waive round 4, and just say something like "I waive this round as agreed upon" in it.
fracking -its just not right!

How is fracking dangerous? Tons of fracking goes on in my area and I can see no adverse effects. Where is the evidence for any of this? My town was dying off before we got hit by a huge fracking boom. We are talking about a a technology that opens up a ton of new resources and makes energy a lot cheaper. You can talk about alternatives, but clean energy is extremely inefficient and uses tons of land. The produced energy of only ONE nuclear power plant is equal to the energy of a solar farm the size of L.A. or a wind farm the size of Connecticut. When you ban fracking, you are banning jobs. Do you really want to deny people paying jobs for the sake of possible danger? Also, because fracking lowers the cost of energy, it becomes easier for poor people to get energy. Many claim fracking is new and dangerous. This is very false. Fracking has been around for over 60 years, we have only now found how to frack horizontally through rock for a much higher yield. http://www.city-journal.org...
fracking -its just not right!

Fracking the last bits of gas that are identified - think about the dangers. Its not as if gas is our last option there are other things we can do safer things, things better for the environment. The queen may allow it but i certainly wont i think it should be banned -Up to 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins. Fracking also cause earth corruptions/tremmas.
cell phones in school

okay beau well ill give you some good reasons why cell phones should be allowed in school. cell phones should be allowed is because we have freedom of speech according to first amendment news 2011. Cell phones also allow students to do more than text. Students can use cell phones for calendars, calculators, and even stopwatches. Also if you have a cell phone with music on it if we were allowed to listen to it then students might do better in school because music might help us focus. One of the biggest reasons why cell phones should be allowed in school is for safety utensils. Another good reason why cell phones should be allowed in school is so that students can take pictures of an assignment to remember to do it. What if one of your relatives get in a car accident or something and there trying to call you and you don"t answer because you"re in class the you feel guilty for the rest of your life.
Christianity causes many problems - Wrong or not, it's dangerous in big ways

I'll be arguing that Christianity as a religion, as a philosophy, as a system, as a collection of doctrines has significant dangerous, unhealthy, bad parts. Now I do mean Christianity itself. I'm not going to say anything historical, pointing out holy wars or something. The whole POINT of this is that the IDEAS are bad, independently of any history. At the same time, Con WILL have to defend the significant doctrines of Christianity. You can't just say you don't personally happen to believe some basic doctrine that mainstream Christians do. Whether Christianity is true or not is a separate issue to be discussed elsewhere. Whether its good qualities are greater than its bad qualities is also not the point. Con will have to defend the particulars of Christianity. Again, let me clarify that Con will not have to defend Christians and that I will not be making any appeals to historical events to prove anything.