BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A perfect god does not exist!

This is an interesting argument variant that attempts to make the case for Atheism by proving that God is not logically feasible. The first problem with your reasoning is that there is a hole in your logic. This is your logical supposition correct? (1)You posit that theists believe that (the Abrahamic) God is perfect, and (2) since perfect things do not need to change (3) then the creation of mankind out of nothing or indeed any change at all creates a logical fallacy. You thereby conclude that (4) God cannot exist. It is very important to note that a LOCAL CONSTRUCTION must be PERFECT in order to be completely true. All that I as the opposition have to do is point out a logical inconsistency or flaw that renders his construction invalid. I feel that this is important to make note of for those considering this argument from the Yes-no perspective. Voting yes on a flawed logical construction just because you agree with the conclusion and are yourself an atheist doesn't constructively progress discourse on this subject. Therefore you should vote CON if you think I have satisfactorily pointed out a logical fallacy within the PRO's argument. The PRO MUST adequately address each of my contentions or his argument is rendered void and invalid. Contention 1) The Problem of Perfect. Perfection exists more as a conceptual absolute idea than as an objective state. Who among us can actually say that we KNOW what "perfection" is or what it looks like? No mortal human can ever be "perfect" just as nothing can "perfectly" achieve a state other than its own status quo. I can say that I am perfect at being myself (because I am myself by definition). The problem occurs when the PRO tries to establish characteristics of the "perfect" that are incorrect. The PRO supposes that perfect things by definition cannot change (Because they have reached a state of equilibrium?). The essential question IS: Why can't perfect things change the nature of their environment (of if God is in everything, Himself). It seems that as long as God is consistent with his (Abrahamic religious) attributes then the problem of "change" doesn't pose a logical fallacy at all. Contention 2) Realizing what Perfect IS The PRO suggests that since God created the universe- there must have been something in need of change. I challenge the PRO to try to imagine a perfect universe. The PRO or you might answer that a perfect universe is one in which everyone is happy all the time and there is no pain or suffering. The problem with that answer is that we forget that joy and happiness loses all context and meaning without the possibility of pain or suffering. Because we can be sad, we can be happy. Because we are all faced with the inevitability of death- we force ourselves to grow that our lives will have meaning. Everything that grows must eventually die. Even this universe that started from the Big Bang has a beginning and an objective end as entropy takes over or gravity sucks us all back in for another Big Bang. I would contend that this world as it is is perfect and therefore it makes sense for God to have created it if he is perfect as well.
A perfect god does not exist!

God is said to be perfect, it is also said that what god makes is complete and perfect, because he is perfect, and therefore needs nothing else, because he is complete and perfect. Why was god compelled to make man and earth? Was he somehow not happy before he created these things? There can be no instability in god as there is in humans. If god is perfect he needs nothing, he desires nothing, there is nothing he must do or will do. A perfect god therefore cannot and does not exist.
Killing someone is morally equivalent to letting them die.

Verily. Scenarios: a) Bob is babysitting his little cousin, who he doesn't particularly care for. While the child is leaning out the back window, looking for his toy that fell, the child starts to lose balance. Bob pushes him out the window, causing him to fall on his head and die. [Action] b) Bob is babysitting his little cousin, who he doesn't particularly care for. While the child is leaning out the back window, looking for his toy that fell, the child starts to lose balance. Bob watches, presuming (correctly) that he will fall on his head and die. [Inaction] Guidelines: 1) Please argue based upon the provided scenario, so semantics and misinterpretations can be avoided. 2) Bob does NOT know beforehand that the child will die. However, he knows that if the child loses balance, the child will fall out the window. He knows that if the child falls out the window, the result will be death. He also knows that it is entirely possible to save the child. Contention: In each scenario, Bob has three options: prevent the child from losing balance (saving the child), push the child out the window (killing the child), or let the child fall out the window (letting the child die). We know that in the case of morals, "the ends justify the means", so your decisions are justified by the outcome. It is obvious that saving the child and killing him are moral opposites, since one results in a life preserved, while the other results in a life taken. However, letting the child die also results in a life taken. The difference is that one is active, while one is passive. But the nature of the decision does not matter when pertaining to morals; it is the outcome that matters. Since killing the child and letting the child die both lead to the same result, they are morally equivalent. Here is my contention in syllogistic form: 1. [Morally, ]"the ends justify the means", or "the outcome justifies the decision". 2. Killing someone has the same outcome as knowing you can save someone, but letting them die anyway. 3. Since killing someone and letting them die have the same outcome, they are morally equivalent.
Resolved: The US Federal Government should utilize a ground force to combat ISIS

Okay, ground force includes all troops, vehicles and weapons on the ground, such as infantry, tanks, humvees, miniguns, turrets, artillery etc. ISIS' base can only be pierced through ground force as the other two methods of attack are air and the navy. A complete air raid can't combat ISIS as it poses danger to civilians, is hampered by anti-aircraft guns and would eventually require ground force to recapture the base. A naval assault is out of the question as there are no oceans around ISIS' base and it will create problems in mobility. The only way to capture their base is straight through ground force. ISIS' barricades can only hold up so long against heavy artillery, and once infantry enters the base there will be lesser damage to civilians than by explosive bombings. If we are talking about stopping their overseas conquest, then I am at a bit of a loss. But chances are their operatives will be hidden among the general public and aerial view will not be enough to get them. Ground troopers would be required to stop the bombers. Once again, there is only the ground force that can deal with with these terrorists, aerial and naval combat are not efficient methods to stop ISIS insurgents.
Resolved: The US Federal Government should utilize a ground force to combat ISIS

Counter-Rebuttal 1: Radicalization My opponent has not yet nullified my impacts, as he simply stated that the rest of the world will blame us if we were to lose to ISIS without any evidence to confirm his claim. Nevertheless, let us look toward the fact that by strengthening ISIS we would be acting counterproductive to our interests. Yes, the hate of the American presence may linger, but by removing US presence from the Middle East we would be preventing the radicalization of the population. This in turn prevents the ISIS group from getting stronger. This is a net benefit. The benefit of my counter plan is that we decrease the amount of intervention in the Middle East while still enacting the most beneficial policy possible, which is to bomb the revenue making portion of ISIS which has already had an effect on the organization by hurting their resources. Intervention is necessary in some cases, however decreasing it will still be a net benefit. Also, the majority of trade that ISIS conducts is with oil through Turkey, not agriculture. Counter-Rebuttal 2: Counter plan Regardless of the propaganda being subtle, the US still has to enact this policy, and that could involve the leakage of information. Not only this, but we are still acting as hypocrites by suppressing the freedom of speech for people in ISIS, which will still ruin our image in the eyes of ISIS and validate the idea that America is some sort of “boogeyman” by showing the act that we are willing to suppress the rights of the people in the Middle East. This is extended as my opponent has yet nullify this impact. Also, the last thing we need to do is directly intervene with the people of the Middle East, because as I have stated before, the fact that the US is still intervening is symbolic to ISIS and is used in propaganda to recruit more. It would also be hard to isolate ISIS in specific location given the fact that they are spread out into different countries including Syria, Iraq, and Libya. So, if my opponent wants to isolate the problem, the blockade will have to be huge, not small, which costs resources, of which we may or may not have given the size of the army being over 200,000. Extend Extend the following points which remain unrefuted: ISIS wants US troops to attack and giving in to their demands harm our image as well. ISIS is strong and would require the majority of US troops to be involved given the strength of ISIS already.
Resolved: The US Federal Government should utilize a ground force to combat ISIS

Last rebuttal- Radicalization While they portray the Americans as the "Western Boogeyman" and such, we need to stay there and do some things right so that the image viewed by the people of the Middle East changes. If we leave, not only the rest of the world will blame us for losing the war, the resentment against American troops would still remain. Furthermore, an aerial assault at ISIS would still be subject to the hatred of the Middle East. Airstrikes ISIS revenue sources may be managed by civilians, or workers forced into helping ISIS. Furthermore, harming the agriculture industry will create a food shortage that will be devastating for all civilians. Losing valuable resources such as oil would not be missed by ISIS, as con states that ISIS lost 40 percent of it oil reserves and other industries. After so many airstrikes, ISIS is more likely to bring in more anti-air guns, as well as guard its territory better. Furthermore, if ISIS lacks the funds, it can force weapon contractors to work for them as now they have a lot of armed firepower, or can open its own weapons manufacturing plants. Lastly, this plan still hasn't seen ISIS crumbling up yet, for 40 percent is a big number. But as con says, not only are they still active, but they are funding more recruits. Counter plan Okay, we can suppress ISIS propaganda subtly, such as it turning up last in the search results, or providing a link to why ISIS is bad in the advertisements column just after the video. These kind of little fallacies are nearly impossible to detect, so ISIS can't use it to turn people against US. Some healing propaganda would be required to improve the image of the US, such as aiding civilians and capture rather than bomb-up. As for air support, I don't plan to use them for bombings, but for recon missions. It will tell us whether there are civilians involved and what is the strength of the enemy. Like suppose if we know that there's mortar and infantry squad, we would know that we must be prepared for mortal shells. Also, my plan would have a chance of an easier recovery of Iraq and Syria than con's plan, as con's plan includes decimating all oil fields and agricultural facilities that supply ISIS. My plan is to blockade ISIS in its little area and regulate supplies, so that ISIS gets desperate enough to try and expand their territory, and we lay down defensive fire. Supplies include ammo, explosives, oil and such.
Resolved: The US Federal Government should utilize a ground force to combat ISIS

Military strength The US has one of the largest armies in the world, and a large defense budget of around 500 million. According to global firepower; US has 120 million soldiers fit for service, about 50,000 armored vehicles such as tanks, artillery, rocket systems and AFV's, and 13000 aircraft. Naval strength is at 415 massive ships, 19 among them aircraft carriers. Air raids The main problem of air raids is that the ISIS have many anti-air guns, which possess a great danger to pilots and aircraft. Plus, pilot training takes a lot of time and therefore pilots are in low number. Furthermore, massive bombings can harm civilians and shortage of supplies such as food and water can take a toll not only on ISIS but everyone inside their territory. Plus, rather than wasting oil reservoirs by bombing them, ground force can capture the resource bases and help fund the military as well as increase morale. What's more, long-range artillery can do the same job as air raids without the problem of anti-air guns. While they need to be a little more close to the target, they are not impeded by anti-air guns and can be backed up by more ground force. ISIS' motives ISIS has announced that its ultimate goal is expanding into a global caliphate governed by Islamic law. It will wage a war against disbelievers, and wants to conquer the entire world. It already holds territory in Iraq and Syria. If we don't stop them now, they will reach a level of power even higher than the US. Anti-American sentiment If we retreat right now, the entire world will blame us for losing this war. When we have much more strength than them and can defeat them, why shall we retreat? As for US soldiers committing atrocities, we must have more discipline in the military and the generals, corporals, sergeants should be told that there shall be no unnecessary torture and no harming civilians. New military training and circulation of troops would help. Counter plan We must try and defend territory that is not under ISIS yet, and spread pro-American propaganda in ISIS' influence zones. We must also block ISIS' supply routes of weapons, oil and other military aids. A 360 blockade must be made around the ISIS' zones to stop them from getting outside help. Once ISIS is running out of supplies and tries to go for the blockade, we must surprise attack them and lead an incursion into their territory. We must also use EMP jammers, internet moderators and other methods to limit spread of ISIS propaganda. ISIS has rushed its hand by announcing its presence early, and is one of the rare terrorists organizations that have called out to challenge the world. We must use that to our advantage and do what we can to take out their HQ. Also, I would like to ask con if ground force can be supported by drones and other aircraft? I am asking this as the resolution says that the US government should use ground force to combat ISIS, but it doesn't say that only ground force should be utilized. Sources http://www.globalfirepower.com... http://edition.cnn.com...
Republicans are inconstant in their defense of individual liberties.

Republicans are not inconsistent in their defense of individual liberties. Now that means I could either argue Republicans are always in support of individual liberties, or they're always against individual liberties. And since they are always against individual liberties, I choose the argue the latter. Now we both agree that the Republicans, in staving off the moral decay of society, are perfectly happy to restrict or ban an array of individual liberties. They actually do want to go into our bed rooms and tell us what we can or cannot do. So as to life style choices, the Republicans are certainly not in defense of individual liberties. The question now is whether or not the Republican philosophy towards economics actually a step forward towards individual liberty. And the simple fact of the matter is, Republican philosophy, in regards to economics, does not promote individual liberty. It promotes a rigid class system which actually significantly restricts the liberty of individuals. As evidence, let's for a moment take the Republican economic agenda and imagine it fulfilled. All social services would be privatized of course. Education would be privatized so only the children of wealthy are privy to quality education, giving them the opportunity to become wealthy. Police would be privatized so only the wealthy would live in communities that are safe. The end consequence? Well it's true that perhaps the wealthy would have the personal liberty to do what they desire, but the economically impoverished would be trapped by their economic circumstance. A child of factory workers would be effectively condemned to factory work. The Republican agenda, if implemented without moderation, effectively destroys social mobility. And without social mobility, there is no freedom for people to do what they aspire to do. Therefore the Republicans are indeed consistent. They want all people to behave as they should. Men should only sleep with women. And the poor should live with and interact with the poor. Thus they consistently restrict the individual liberty of people to be and do what they want.
Republicans are inconstant in their defense of individual liberties.

Republicans do a decent job championing the philosophy that people should be entitled to keep as much of their own money as possible. They also assert that government should stay out of our business affairs. These two beliefs demonstrate a high regard for personal freedoms. Republicans are for low taxes and against wealth redistribution (or socialism as I call it). They are for letting businesses decide what they want to offer the public, and letting the public decide which businesses they want to patronize. These principles are in perfect harmony with one another. All seems kosher. But then, suddenly and inexplicably, when the topic changes to freedom of personal behavior or lifestyle, the Republicans lose all consistency in their quest to keep government off our backs. They have no problem telling people what they can and can't do with their personal lives. For instance, Republicans are against the legalization of prostitution, gay marriage, and drug use. They are for the criminalization of abortion. In defending their positions on these topics they set aside their objectivity and point to moral or religious dogma to support their positions. While citing their effort to stave off the "moral decay of society," they are perfectly happy to restrict or ban an array of individual liberties. If one holds individual liberty to be sacred in principle, his defense of liberty should be applied consistently across the entire spectrum of political issues, and not just those having to do with business and personal finance. I submit that it is wrong for the Republicans to abandon their principles of individual freedom so that they may legislate personal behavior for the sake of morality or public safety.
Republicans are inconstant in their defense of individual liberties.

1. What is a constraint on individual liberty? "economic constraints could interfere with freedom" (Me) "they (economic constraints) do not interfere with our liberty because we are free to change them if we choose to put forth the effort." (Handsoff) The belief that anyone can become a millionaire is what separates Americans from the rest of the world. And I agree, with sufficient effort, most Americans can achieve some economic freedom .... Now ponder this situation: You have Bob who is trapped in a perimeter with a fence 6 feet high. Bob, with sufficient effort could overcome this obstacle. If the fence is raised to 12 feet, Bob will require greater effort, but with sufficient effort, could still overcome this obstacle. In this easily applicable analogy, the Fence inhibits Bob's freedom. The Fence, if raised, further restricts Bob's freedom. But replace the word Fence with Economic Constraints. Yes, with sufficient effort you could overcome economic constraints, but do economic constraints interfere with freedom? Yes, in the same way the Fence does. This responds to the first 2 paragraphs. 2. Does Republican economic philosophy discourages social mobility? The answer to this is yes. The example I focused on was education. My opponent claims Republicans are in support of school vouchers to send children to private schools. But that's silly. If we send some of our students to private institutions, then we're drawing money away from the public schools. This then decreases the education of people remaining in public schools. Those who are stuck in public schools with declining resources then face decreased social mobility. But it's also silly because it misses the point. Education is not the only field. The elimination of the Estate Tax, the decrease in income tax for the wealthy, all these initiatives, for good or ill, decreases social mobility. (For Estate Tax, see the link: http://papers.ssrn.com... It's an abstract from MIT's department of economics which modeled different forms of taxation and noted that a progressive estate tax is best for social mobility) My opponent accuses me of exaggeration, but the simple truth is, the Republican philosophy of lazier-faire capitalism leads to a decline in social mobility. 3. Is a decline in social mobility a constraint on individual liberty? And the answer to that is Yes. Less social mobility means individuals have less freedom to act "in according to his or her own free will". Is it possible for them to be free through substantial effort? Yes of course. But just because the fence can be climbed does not preclude the fence from being a barrier to freedom. And if Republican economic ideology raises the fence, then it makes attaining freedom more difficult. Therefore they are consistent in their defense of individual liberties. Or rather they are consistent in opposing the defense of individual liberties.
Organized religion

I understand your argument, however, the opportunity for a religion that does not have a structure such as the Roman Catholic Church (as mentioned), is within the realm of possibility. While I understand your frustration with the pope, the overall structure needs to be examined. The pope is more symbolic than anything else. I do not believe he in anyway ought to be held above any other man on this earth, however he is just a man who teaches the word of the bible. Other than that, he means nothing to the majority of people. And that's how it should be when it comes to people. The fact of the matter is: religions a choice, and therefore so is the religious organizations they might be associated with. The possibility of a religion with no ranks is too great to get rid of religion as a whole, and therefore, I stand in my argument. Thanks you, I am finished.
Organized religion

My biggest problem with religion is the amount of influence the organizations have or the people the take up the mantle of leadership under religious pretense. If religion were say, some kind of philosophy where priests and such were teachers and were not ranked. Organized religion simply holds too much sway on the general population. I detest the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has a pope or cardinals that stand above other priests in terms on authority. Perhaps other religions don't have such a structure and if they don't please enlighten me to the differences in the more major faiths (I grew up roman catholic, now agnostic). There is no issue with different interpretations of texts, different people different ideas and all that. In fact that is the way it should be, with nobody as an 'authority' on 'God'.