BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

First of all I would like to talk (or write) about Kalam C.A.. It is named after Ilm-i Kalam. Basically Ilm-i Kalam is religious-philosophical theory which discusses issues about knowledge, faith and belief related to Islam. Some Muslim scholars was against Ilm-i Kalam, and some was pro. If you (anyone who read this) want more information read books of Imam Ghazali, also Muhyiddin Arabi, also books of Mutazila scholars.Now let's return to topic. Argument is valid, and question is about soundness of argument. The second premise is true, scientifically and philosophically. Everyone heard about Big Bang (except FoxNews watchers). But some people have major problem with major premise. Reasons for that is, P1 is work under the LAWS OF UNIVERSE, and at t=0 (!Time and space are equal to 0) there was no universe, so applying the law which works in universe to out of universe is not necessarily true also is not necessarily false, it may be true or false. But we cannot never be sure (from scientific perspective), because science is observation and we can only observe t>0. But, Science is not only method of proving things. The core of Science is Mathematics, and Mathematics is based on axioms, principles which accepted to be true whit out any proof. You cannot proof axiom using scientific method, because by using scientific method you are already assuming the axioms are true, because science is based on that axioms via Mathematics. You can use logical reasoning, the process of elimination, and etc.There are five possible explanations for origin of universe:1. It came from nothing.2. It created itself.3. It was created by collision of two (or may be more) universes, or by division of single universe. (!Multiverse Theory)4. The caused Cause caused the universe into existence.5. The uncaused Cause cause(d) the universe into existence.By analyzing each statement, and eliminating the false statement you will left with the true statement. (If there is sixth possible explanation, I would like to know it.)Before you analyze the statements, you should consider few things, out of nothing nothing comes, an object cannot exist and not-exist at the same time, and absurdity of infinity.This my opening argument. The Next round I will talk about major premise (P1) and why it is true.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is as follows:P1: Everything that begins to exist has a causeP2: The universe began to existC: The universe has a causePro must also show that the cause must be God. The first round is for Pro's opening arguments. To ensure we have the same amount of rounds, in round 4, Pro must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."
asia bibi sentenced to death in Pakistan for being christian. Is this the religion of peace in acton

I regret this action. But the one who sentenced Asia Bibi to death is not a true muslim. Our Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W.W) taught us not harm or citicise the person from another religion and if someone changes his religion from Hinduism, Christianity, or any to Islam, we should welcome him and if someone changes his religion from Islam to other, we should not say anything to him. Just pray for him to go on the right path, where he could become successful in life hereafter. The best example of peace by Holy Prophet (S.A.W.W) is the conquest of Makkah. When Muslim conquered Makkah, the people of Makkah scared that Muslims will kill them but the forgave them all.
Drinking beer should not be allowed in public places

As my opponent suggests, drinking in public can potentially lead to many different problems, especially when individuals are allowed to overindulge. However, if a person does not over-drink, and can handle themselves in a responsible manner, then there is no reason why drinking need be prohibited. For that matter, Pro's concerns seem to be more exclusively based on the topic of over-drinking, and less based on the issue of drinking in public. The main issues that surround the concept of public drinking are those involving children. Specifically, drinking in public increases the chances of illegal drinking by persons under the age of 21. This is one reason why there are drinking restrictions in some locations, but the reason why this is not universal is that public areas are, generally speaking, publicly owned, meaning that the public has the right to drink, if they so choose. One example is the beach. People have the right to drink on the beach, and the prevention of underage drinking becomes the responsibility of both the adults providing alcohol. The police will occasionally get involved if there is disturbing of the peace, and they will also penalize the providers and underage drinkers if they discover any illegal activity. At the end of the day, underage exposure to drinking is a calculated risk, shared by the public as a whole. Enforcement is an appropriate legal response. Pro's biggest concern is with overindulging and the potential dangers of alcohol, and these dangers are equally present no matter where the individual chooses to drink. I look forward to rebuttal and conclusion!
Liberty is maximized through Socialism not Capitalism

My opponent admits that capitalism creates monopolies, which causes economic oppression and loss of freedom. He argues that this is okay because monopolies will eventually be destroyed. This is very flawed logic; he is saying oppression is okay as long as it does not last long. So is it okay if Hitler killed six million Jews as long as the problem is eventually solved. You can see the problems with this logic. Let me go on, the problem with capitalism is that it creates competition. This is an actual flaw with the theory of capitalism and not the practice of it. So no matter who practices capitalism it will never work because the very thing that drives it causes economic oppression. To continue my opponent can only point at flaws in the practice of Socialism, he has yet to point out a flaw with actual theory. He says people take advantage of the system and have no reason to work that is a flaw with human nature not actually a flaw with the system of Socialism. He could say that the government has far too many rights and can take away your freedom and again this is a flaw of government and not the system of Socialism. Therefore he has yet to show me a flaw in the theory of Socialism he has only shown me flaws in the practice of it. My opponent says "It sounds good on paper but doesn't work anywhere, at any time, for any reason." Last time I checked this debate is on paper/in theory. To cite examples of socialism from the real world would skew the accuracy of the debate, because of economic systems of this type are run by the government, therefore, the quality Socialism depends on the quality of government that runs it. I can cite examples of capitalism because the idea behind capitalism is the government does not need to step in, therefore, my results will not be skewed by the system of government running it. My opponent also says "It is completely flawed in principle." He has yet to prove that is a fact. He has pointed out flaws in human nature and government not flaws in the actual theory. I challenge my opponent to refute my argument and prove to me that capitalism is not flawed in principle and the socialism is. Until he can do that he cannot win the argument
Liberty is maximized through Socialism not Capitalism

I agree if you lived in a society were everything was given away you would not be able to get everything you want and resources would run out, however, this is not what I intended to described. My opponent is describing Communism not Socialism. Therefore I cannot respond directly to the statements made by my opponent because they are based on the assumption that I was describing Communism. Now I will describe in greater detail the flaws as I see them with Capitalism. One of the biggest flaws is the competition capitalism creates between companies. Most people would say this is the best part about Capitalism buyers can choose exactly what they want and if the do not like the goods being offered the can take their business to another company. This is true for a while; however, for something to be a competition you must have a winner and when a company completely takes over the market you no longer have the freedom to choose the products you buy. This can make for large price increases and less than impressive products. You may question if this is a valid argument, if so look no farther than the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century and standard oil. The flaws are obvious. In Socialism the government would have the ability to intervene and stop monopolies. My next point is you have less liberty in Capitalism because you are controlled by your monetary status. You may say that you are not controlled by your economic status; you are given exactly what you earn if you work hard at your job. This is true to a degree; however, you do not always have control over what you spend money on, for example when you become ill. Therefore it is agreeable that you do not always have control over your monetary status. So when you desire to educate yourself to improve your economic status (which costs money in a true capitalist society), you are held prisoner by your current economic status which is something you cannot always control. In Socialism the government can remove the costs that you do not have control over so you are not a victim of chance and the government can remove the costs of education so you can educate yourself according to ability and not your economic status. In review Capitalism creates monopolies which inhibits the consumer's right to purchase the products he or she chooses. My last point is in capitalism you are held in check by your economic status, which prevents you from improving your credentials, in turn, you cannot find a better job to remove you from your current economic status. I believe I covered my case extensively I invite my opponent to challenge my statements and explain why he believes capitalism is a better system of economics.
Liberty is maximized through Socialism not Capitalism

My opponent's argument is essentially that since things have a cost, you are not free to acquire those things which you cannot afford. While this is true, my opponent neglects the fact that in a socialist, central-planned economy, a similar restriction of freedom applies. If my opponent is imagining a society where there are no prices, then a person could hypothetically take whatever he wanted, correct? This is a flawed assumption. The problem with any economic system is infinite wants versus finite resources. Be it capitalism or socialism, people will always want MORE than society can provide. Thus, there must be a fair way to determine who gets how much. Capitalism runs under the notion that everyone should get what they work for. Socialism runs under the notion that everyone should get the same amount regardless. If I were living under a socialist economy, I would never be able to own a private jet. However, in a capitalist economy, I could potentially own one if I saved enough money for it. I would then say that the capitalist is more free because there exists the potential to get whatever he wants, whereas the socialist cannot control what he gets: How hard he works has nothing to do with how much he is rewarded. As my opponent has only made an opening statement with that single point, I now invite my opponent to make a thorough post, in great detail, about his ideal socialist economy, the inherent flaws of capitalism, what both have to do with freedom, and to respond to my points.
Liberty is maximized through Socialism not Capitalism

I believe my statement is quite clear. The reasoning behind my argument is Capitalism restricts your freedom because of your economic status. Since your economic status is something you do not always have control over you have less liberty. In Socialism your are not trapped by your economic status because everything does not have a cost. Keep in mind this is not a debate on systems of rule such as democracy or autocracy, just a debate on the economic systems themselves. I will go into farther detail once someone has excepted my challenge.
[Pregnant] women should be treated as slaves who're supposed to carry and serve a fetus till birth

I did not understand what pro-slavery Kend_Hovind is talking about. He just typed "were you there? " He is supposed to demonstrate [pregnant] women should be treated as slaves who are supposed to carry, Feed and serve a fetus till birth. He has not raised any arguements, I do not have anything to deal with. I skip this round and look forward to him.
[Pregnant] women should be treated as slaves who're supposed to carry and serve a fetus till birth

"[Pregnant] women should be treated as slaves who're supposed to carry and serve a fetus till birth" This debate is to argue for and against treating women as slaves who are supposed to carry and serve a fetus for 9 months. I am con. Pro should establish and argue that [pregnant] women should be treated as slaves who are obliged to carry and serve fetus till birth and they should not have liberty to not serve and carry those fetuses. In short this debate is Pro-Liberty vs Pro-Slavery. I am Pro-liberty. As I am con, I am not going to propose any arguement. I am waiting for my opponent to raise arguements, I shall try to refute their arguements.
P.E.T.A. kills animals

1. The receptionist stated that PETA did not operate an animal shelter. When I indicated that PETA did report to operate an animal shelter and that this office has inspected in it in the past, an additional staff member was called to the desk and reiterated that there was no shelter. At this point I asked for Ms. Nachminovitch. Ms. Nachminovitch was called and indicated that she would be at the facility shortly. No other staff was available to begin the inspection. 2. The facility contains three rooms designated as animal enclosures. The rooms are not further subdivided into runs or cages. The three animals occupying the rooms were not being held for adoption purposes (one was being held in conjunction with the clinic operations, one was being boarded for an indigent community member, and one on behalf of a PETA employee). The facility does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody. 3. 2902010 animal custody records were reviewed. 17 or 6% were recorded as adopted or in foster homes, 273 or 94% were recorded as euthanized. Of these, 245 or 90% were euthanized within the first 24 hours of custody.
P.E.T.A. kills animals

Actually guys, this is VERY easy to disprove that they're animal killers. Because there is no context! The Center for Consumer Freedom, a lobbyist front group for some of the worst industries (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, animal agriculture, junk food, etc) created "PETA Kills Animals" to attempt to discredit People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals since getting people to be humane to animals is devastating to animal agriculture big business. A lot of people critize PETA and think that they go around killing animals for fun. This couldn"t be further from the truth. They published a counter argument at PETASaves.com which talks about their "shelter of last resort" where they ONLY taken in broken animals with nowhere to go that need relief. They defer away healthy animals that are adoptable and don't take them in. So the only ones they DO take in are ones that NEED humane euthanasia. They also offer discount euthanasia to locals that otherwise would throw a bag of puppies in the river or take them out back and shoot them. They also rescue animals about to be inhumanely euthanized (e.g. instances of shelters running a hose from a van to a box) and humanely euthanize them. They take animals in that need to go to a better place. Sources/References: http://www.consumerdeception.com... http://www.bloomberg.com... http://petasaves.com... http://www.citizensforethics.org...
should japan be allowed to rearm with nuclear arms

1: my opponet makes style and personal attacks in the rebuttle he just gave he only proves that the US is not fit to control baese if we act the way he did 2: he took my first arguement in the secound rebuttal wrong what i was saying is that military action doesnt make a country crazy 3 he didnt answer the economy arguement made in rebuttal 2 which says that japan will hold the alliance because of what we have don for them 4 he also dropped my solvency for japan secnairo so even if they get out of hand we will politicaly handle them no risk of war on his only ! well he did but he made an arguement that made no sense C: Again you assume Japan having nukes will solve the problem yet our nukes in the U.S are not detering them yeah very big hole there. if he spent more time answering this he might have won who is "them" 5 the question was not weither this could be done rather should it happen my opponet is trying to take this debate to different context by his treaty if he wants to debate if i could happen he can meet me after class 6 arguement 1 can and should be disregaurded 7 another miss understanding; he thinks what im saying US will be attacked without japans help let me clairfy this to him- the US will be spread to thin enemys take advantage of this attact US US and allies retaliate causing WWIII im not saying allies wont help but turn his allies arguement they will be fuel to a wwIII fire 8 B; if a gun is pointed in your face and your told not to do something you wont do it therefore deterence just with a nuke 9 vote pro; even if you give him crazy japan secenario we solve with c in the secound part because the pro holds alot more ! and they are more probable then japan going crazy after years of peace WWII ended 65 years ago most people to hold a grudge are dead or to old to serve
should japan be allowed to rearm with nuclear arms

ok so 1. by my opponets logic we should have been nuked by brittan cause we beat them but we have an alliance with them now huh thats odd aint it 2: we have rebuilt japans economie to a better than pre-WWII level 3: there is only 1 treaty against japan rearm and thats by us so you can drop the treaty arguement 4: my opponet dropped the arguements about china and north korea also he dropped my world politics arguement 5:i will now ! all of my arguements and since I believe i have profecently answered all arguements this should be allowed A: The US being spread so thin gets attacked because of weak apperance causes nuke genocide and WWIII with worse causlities B: japan not able to deter an US spread leads to ! above C: US can better solve for war if japan rearms solves nuke war even if japan gets trigger happy we can step them off the ledge using soft power D: japan being a prime choice for troop withdrawl because of the reasons above japan remains loyal to the US better enforcing my good reasons for troop withdrawl (wow this is fun)
should japan be allowed to rearm with nuclear arms

By giving Nuclear weapons to Japan would be for one going against multiply treaties and political crap that it would be very difficult to do so. Even then would it be wise to give nukes to a country with leaders that possibly have a grudge from WWII remember these people were known for suicide bombers self sacrafice i don't think they would think twice to launch one off if possible out of revenge. Since we nuked them twice, remember japans not allies by choice we forced them to be.
Ban guns in the U.S.

I. Criminals will ignore gun laws. Criminals are already committing a crime, why would they care if they're committing another crime by using a gun to do it? They won't. II. Criminals are resourceful. Criminals are criminals. Even if you are successful in getting rid of guns for good, criminals will find other ways to kill people. They may use baseball bats, knives, hammers, cyanide, or an axe. It happened in London with knives [1]. III. Conceal and Carry Zones Ward off Criminals. Think about it. If you were a criminal, would you try to rob a store where you know the owner has a gun under the counter, or would you try to rob a store where you knew the owner didn't have a gun? I have an image for this as well. IV. Overall Crime Rate Goes Down in Places With No Anti Gun Laws. Here's some advice for you. Compare the crime rate of Bremen, IN [3] with the crime rate of Indianapolis, IN [2]. The crime rate in places where there are more adults with guns, the crime rate has gone DOWN. V. Peple Kill People. Guns don't kill people. The reality is that people kill people. A gun is just an inanimate object, it cannot fire without a human behind the trigger. Blaming the gun for a murder is ridiculous. VI. Innacurate Depiction of Gun Use. If you've seen the movies, or political cartoon made by liberals, chances are that you have seen superheroes of NRA members armed to the teeth with guns and this crazy look in their eyes. This is not what gun use looks like. VII. Political Megalomaniacs A lot of politicians who want to disarm you are only seeking to gain more power. "The best way to take over a country is to take away their guns first." -Adolf Hitler VIII. The Reasoning Behind the Second Amendment. The reason the Founding Fathers placed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights was in case the government had become corrupt, and We the People needed to rise up and defend freedom. Back when America was under the control of the British, the Colonists were not allowed to own guns, only the military was. The Founding Fathers had experinced the effects of this and added the Second Amendment to protect the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. SOURCES 1: http://www.bbc.com... 2: http://www.areavibes.com... 3: http://www.areavibes.com...
Jesus is still loving and pure even when he had all those innocents killed in the OT

That's nice... Also, consider this. Man often wants to know how to harmonize God"s "justice, holiness and truth" with His "love, mercy, and compassion," We seldom reverse this, however, and want to know how to harmonize His "love, mercy and compassion" with His "justice, holiness and truth." Instead of wondering why a loving, merciful, and compassionate God destroyed the Canaanites or the Amalekites, why not wonder why a just, holy and true God was patient with them for such a long time considering their totally degraded behavior. Indeed, in view of the absolute holy character of God as presented in the Bible, why does he bear with any of us? Why was He willing to send His Son to die for our sin so that they who believe on Christ might be saved? This is the mystery which finds its answer in God"s love. Furthermore, I find it strange that men and women today who challenge Christianity, using as one of their reasons the slaughter of men, women, and children, are often supportive of abortion which is nothing less that the true slaughter of innocent children by the millions. The book of Revelation teaches Christ will come to earth and literally destroy millions because of the rebellion and unbelief of man"s heart. In fact, the tribulation period, which is described for us in Revelation 6-19, will among other things, demonstrate the true nature of man and just what lengths he will go to in his sin and rebellion when left to himself. Christ spoke of this time in Matthew 24. So the Old Testament is not alone in demonstrating God"s wrath and judgment against sin.