BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Murder is okay under all circumstances

I am challenging the user "mostlogical" to this debate one more time as I thought of other things I could argue which I failed to do so in the first debate. Here is the original debate: http://www.debate.org...I would be grateful if they accepted this one more time. I look forward to this debate one more time. If my opponent wants, they may copy and paste their arguments from the previous debate into this one. I would like them to post their arguments in round 1, and I will respond accordingly. To keep the number of rounds used for debate even between us, I would ask mostlogical to waive round 3, and just say in it something like "I waive this round as agreed upon".
Rich nations should not aid poor nations

Okay, this will go really weirdly. I kinda took the Con position in my arguments by accident (the title says "should not aid"), so as well as refuting my opponent's argument, I will have to refute my own. Con's argument: If the poor country does not needs less work to produce goods, then the government of the country may lose its independence, and will not be able to function on its own. My arguments from before: 1 and 2. Almost all forms of aid could lead to the poor country's loss of independence. 1. If our reputation adds that we are nice, it can send a message to foreign enemies that we could be an easy target. 2. When it comes to being indebted, that is a horrible position for any poor country. If the poor country would be incapable of paying the rich country back, we may be brought back to the time in which we had colonies, whereas the rich country is the mother country and the poor country is the colony. All of this is relevant to independence. Remember what New France was like under French control? It wasn't that good. I'm sorry for the potential confusion I have caused, but I have refuted my opponent's and my own arguments that support aid (I was playing the devil's advocate in this round).
Rich nations should not aid poor nations

For the reader's information, this was a challenge to me. I will be debating pro-aid. Let us begin. Con's argument is that aiding a poor country will mean that the poor country will not have to work as hard to profuce goods. I have two ways to respond to that: 1. Aid is not always in producing manufactured items. 2. If a country does not have to work as hard to produce manufactured goods, it can be a positive thing, as it can help develop the country and bring it closer to riches. My arguments: 1. The act of aid is an act of kindness, and the rich country's reputation will become better. 2. The poor country may feel indebted to the rich country, thus it will feel in the future that it should repay the rich country, will will help the rich country. I would like to thank Con for starting this debate. Back to Con.
if you are a CHRISTIAN gay marrige should be compared to murderers and other sinful people.

Well, I am very disappointed my opponent did not respond to my points. "It is making all the sinful acts equal because all those acts are deserving of the same death." The only thing you said that might make sense. ALL sins are equal in God's eyes. In that sense yes murder is comparible to homosexuality, but so is homosexuality comparible to arguing with your mother. If you fail to address my points from previous arguments I do not know if I can continue this debate. You say be a homosexual is just as repulsive as a mass murderer, does that also mean you think there should be capital punishment for homosexuals? I see you are for the death penalty. If you believe murderers should be put to death why not homosexuals? Or how about people that cheat on their test? Or what about the kid who stole a candy bar from the corner store? They have all sinned and according to God there is no diffrence. Right?
if you are a CHRISTIAN gay marrige should be compared to murderers and other sinful people.

Revelation 21:8 (New International Version) 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the MURDERERS, the SEXUALLY IMMORAL, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Before we start I hope that me and you can both agree that SEXUALLY IMMORAL is refering to rapists, porn adicts, perverts, AND HOMOSEXUALS. That should be clear to you because the verse below is comparing sexually immoral people to Homosexuals now that we are clear on that I will begin my argument. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders Revelation 21:8 clearly states that gays are compared to murders those who practice magic ect. It is making all the sinful acts equal because all those acts are deserving of the same death. (Lake of Fire) Homosexualism is a horrid sin and it has been accepted into days society. Im sorry my response is short but at the same time there is allot in it I cant say much because the Bible speaks for itself. I look forward to your next argument.
if you are a CHRISTIAN gay marrige should be compared to murderers and other sinful people.

Not sure why you felt the need to have 4 rounds in this debate, but ok. Your debate topic is vague, but I think you are saying that Homosexuals are just as bad as murderers. I think I can end this debate in one short awnser. "Sin is sin ok its no like 1 there is stealing then there is killing then there is gay people. No, sin is sin." You claim that homosexuals are just as bad as murderers because they have sinned. While I agree "sin is sin", couldn't you also say calling your sister a childish name is as bad as murder by your logic? I do not agree with homosexuality and yes I do think it is a sin. I DO NOT think it comparible with murder. The Bible says in Romans 3:23 that,"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". I am sure you have committed sins in your life as I have. It doesn't make us comparible to murderers does it? "When God whiped put a whole nation because one of the major reasons is that they were gay. That city was Sadamn and Gammora." God destroyed Sodom and Gammorrah for a number of reasons. One was possibly homosexuality. Other reasons included the general wickedness which had prompted the Lord to send angels to the city to investigate in the first place; because the people of Sodom had tried to rape the angels; and the city was destroyed for inhospitable treatment of visitors sent from the Lord. You don't know exactly why God destroyed Sodom and Gammorrah so please refrain from making assumptions. "God hatse the sinfulness of gay people just as much as he hates the sinfulness of a murderer." Yes he does, he also hates the sinfulness of somone who cheats on their test as much as a murderer. Once again you wouldn't compare this to murder. I don't think there is much else left to be said. Like I have said previously, I don't agree with homosexual behavior and I do agree it is sin, but I don't see how you can compare this to someone who takes the life of another individual.
if you are a CHRISTIAN gay marrige should be compared to murderers and other sinful people.

"Patriots, as a fellow conservative I want to tell you that you have alot to learn. I don't agree with same-sex marriage but I do not think homosexuals are comparible to murderers. I believe it is wrong for more than just religious reasons." Well i think that gay people are in sin and are just as bad as a murderer or a robber. What is so different about them they are are sinning they are both a violation of Gods law and they both are very seris on how bad sin is. Sin is sin ok its no like 1 there is stealing then there is killing then there is gay people. No, sin is sin. Gay people are just as bad as murderers. You know it used to be like that back in the old days where gay people wouldnt say a word about how they were. It was just left to themselves like it should have been but then the 60s came along and people were aloud to be more open about it. But back then it was considerd a major sin to be that way you would go to insane asilems if you were gay and they found out. Im saying that sensce it was terrible back then it should be terrible now. I think you are to easily persuaded by the world and how it accepts gays these days you need to think about what the bible says. When God whiped put a whole nation because one of the major reasons is that they were gay. That city was Sadamn and Gammora. So obviously God hatse the sinfulness of gay people just as much as he hates the sinfulness of a murderer. Mayby i do have alot to learn on the debating side of a conservative but what i do know is that i am rite obout is that gays should be compared to murderers and robbers because it is sin in Gods eyes.
Quantum Mechanics has debunked Materialism

"I would modify P1 as follows: The external world is either real and PHYSICAL or, the external world is not real and not physical. I am not sure if that has any substantive point, however." - ProIf my opponent would have read the comments of this debate, he would have seen that I already pointed out this typo on my behalf. "When matter, shot through the double slit apparatus one at a time shows wavelike behavior, that it because it doesn't physically exist during the time it is traveling."My opponent has provided no evidence or sources to back up the claim that the matter does not exist during the time it is travelling. First of all, my opponent has to assume a Copenhagen like interpretation to even begin to derive his desired result in the first place. This means his whole argument begs the question against deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics (which are realist). This puts a huge question mark over my opponent's entire argument.My opponent also completely ignored my argument with regards to the zero-energy universe which shows that there is no violation of the conservation of energy even if more energy is produced. ConclusionMy opponent has engaged in misconduct by trying to bypass the character limits unfairly. Also, his argument begs the question against other interpretations of quantum mechanics, as his argument relies on one specific interpretation. Additionally, he ignores my argument with regards to a zero-energy universe. The resolution has been negated.
Quantum Mechanics has debunked Materialism

Con States: Hopefully I am not straw-manning. but I feel like it will be easier to attack my opponent's opening argument if it was presented in the form of a logical syllogism: P1: The external world is either real and non-physical, or the external world is not real and non-physical P2: Quantum experiments demonstrate true conclusions which could not be true if the external world is real and physical C: The external world is not real and non-physical I would modify P1 as follows: The external world is either real and PHYSICAL or, the external world is not real and not physical. I am not sure if that has any substantive point, however. Con states: The problem with the above is the fact that there is no violation of the conservation of energy. It is simply not true that it takes two photons or electrons to, in essence, "cancel each other out". In reality, it truly only takes each one. For example, each photon will act as a wave and interfere with itself to create the interference pattern. This means that the energy of the photon is never really lost, contrary to what my opponent believes. This means that the double slit experiment does not actually cast any serious doubt on physicalism. -Con The experiment is much more interesting when talking about matter than light. A particle of matter has mass, and should (though quantum physics clearly shows that it is not) be at a specific, definable place. When matter, shot through the double slit apparatus one at a time shows wavelike behavior, that it because it doesn't physically exist during the time it is traveling. Rather it's travel is calculated and rendered on demand. Which is why if you concluded the experiment after but a single electron, you'd have an electron in what appeared to be a completely random location. Furthermore, that explains why the experiment changes when detectors are put at the slit. With detectors, the probability-wave cannot go through both slits, because it has to be rendered to be measured. Once it's rendered, it's future travel is calculated from that point forward, resulting in clumps instead of an interference pattern. Con States: This is an appeal to ignorance[3] logical fallacy. Even if we had no other explanation, it would not follow from this that your hypothesis is a fact. Pro said that his burden was to show that, and I quote: "physical reality is, in fact, a very high fidelity simulation." - Pro My use of the phrase "in fact" was probably overstating the case. I should have moderated it. Rather than take up the space trying to fit the rest of my whitepaper, I will link it here. I probably should have done that in the first place. Because I tried to fit it where it doesn't fit, I only got one out of a number of examples listed, though the DSE is the grand-daddy of them all. My entire whitepaper may be found here: http://randommusingsbykevin.blogspot.com...
Allied Military Generals In World War II were on Average Worse than their German Counter Parts

I recently had a debate with m friend on who was a better general Patton or Rommel with me favoring Rommel I won but I would like to challenge anyone with a background in World War II history to argue that the Allied generals were better at the tactical and strategic level. Note that this is not about civilian leaders, decisions pressured upon by civilian leaders, or which side was morally correct merely who was the better general.
Raising the Driving Age to 21

And I will Refute my opponent, then support my topics. (1) As for the assembly, it was about drunk driving not just peer pressure. And so you know the school did not need to spend any money on the assembly because the community was so involved and decided to donate their time and services. For example the fire department used this as training so that they may act better in a real emergency. But that is beside the point. One reason that kids were laughing is because they don't want to show that they could be afraid, And some would trying to get others to quiet down by being loud themselves. But either way I truly believe that even if the people think that it didn't effect them. "1 small speck of dirt can grow until your entire mind is filled. " Anonymous. Even if all you got was to not drink then it helped, but it would have been better if more people had seen it because it was a very powerful assembly. (2) I apologize but I have yet to find how this is relevant to this topic because in most of those countries they have the option to get their license but chose not to, therefore the accident rate is lower not because of the driving age (which is 18) but because of the choices of the people. (3) Your third point is a good point I must admit, if it were executed properly. Responsibility has less to do with driving, then driving has to do with responsibility. You do not need to drive to be responsible, but you need to be responsible to drive. Your family is in much more danger due to a drunk driver then a teenage one. When driving drunk, you lose 2 seconds off your reaction time. This is much more than the half a second or 1 second teens lose. Thus we should be focusing more on catching drunk drivers then teens. And you say that many teenagers will not act responsible or safe, but less than 30 percent of all teens ever get in an accident. That is much less then many. Now to my points: (1) Do you actually think about every step before you take it, no because then it would take you five minutes to go down the hallway. Driving is a lot the same. Yes you think some about it but if you take the time to think about every step and make sure you do it "right. " Being over cautious is like becoming too confident in your mental abilities and not studying for a test. And then you fail because you didn't know what was on the test. In driving if you pay attention you are fine, but if you pay too much attention you over analyze. And I ask you to please vote against this topic.
Raising the Driving Age to 21

(1) First You don't need a car to drive, and if you don't get your license until you are 21 then if you did get a car for your 16th birthday, it would sit there for 5 long years before you could drive it thus making it an older car that is not as efficient as the current cars are. Plus I need to point out an error in your facts. In the state of Oregon you can apply for your learners permit, and you take a knowledge test that you must pass. And to apply for your drivers license you must have either taken drivers education, or have 100 hours of driving experience. (2) Oregon is one of the greenest states in the US, we have many projects to help with preserving the economy. We have a strong railroad system as well as TriMet. Portland had recently been ranked one of the best paces to go biking in all of Oregon. This shows that we care about conserving our environment, one way that we do this is by regularly having "Bike to work day" or "Public transportation day." Japan is the leading car manufacture in the world, yet most people there do not drive. The driving age there is 18 years old, but most people don't even own a car. This is because of the far superior public transportation system. If our public transportation system were to be improved less people would drive. But as you get further outside of the city, The transportation becomes less available. Some people have to get driven to school because they live too far for the buses to go. So if the parents are not available then they might miss out on their education. If these same kids could get their license at 16 then the parents would not need to drive their children to school, just to turn around to go to work. (3) Although most teenage drivers are so nervous about crashing that they start becoming over cautious, which also is not safe, but "mature" drivers often get over confident and driving becomes a habit that they don't think about. Many teens involving teenage drivers also involve a "mature" driver. When the "mature" driver puts them in a situation that they are unfamiliar with, so they freak out and end up crashing. (4) Crashes are not the only unsafe thing happening. Less then half of the speeding tickets, and "fender benders" involve teenage drivers. The rest involve the said more "mature" drivers. Speeding increases the likelihood of an accident. Even most small accidents are caused by people that are over confident or not paying attention. So that your teenage drivers are not always breaking the law, or bugging you for a ride, or missing out on their education, please vote in opposition of this resolution.
Raising the Driving Age to 21

I will point out that your quote seems to be contradicting in the way that, if a tree is "defending" itself, it's because of out of control driving. I will now go over my contentions to prove my case (1) Contention - Peer Pressure. In shows like My Super Sweet Sixteen, we see teens who did NOT get their permits because they failed yet, they get a new car. This pressure many into getting a car too. First thing many teens do (without bad intentions) is that they will show off their permits for everyone to see and those who don't have one, will want to get one too. At sixteen you may be able to get your permit, but it is not until you are 18 that you can get your license, thus changing the driving age to 21 will not be such a dramatic change. Peer pressure really effects other students because some don't really pay attention to getting their permits until others point it out. (2) Contention - Status Quo. In many places such as Mexico, Germany, and/or France people hardly use a car. Instead you will see people walking, taking their bike, or another type of transportation. Walking is exercise and exercise is very important to everyone's health. On beautiful sunny days, people can take a bike to wherever they are going and if it's too far, the bus has a place in the front where you can place your bike. To get to school, there's both a school bus and a public bus. Not owning a car will actually be economically beneficial. Without a car you will not have to worry about paying insurance in these hard economic time. (3) Contention - Maturity/Responsibility. Having their teenage daughter or son out in the highway, is every parent's concern. Maturity has a lot to do with today's young drivers. 16 year old drivers crash at a higher rate than those that are older. Scientist say it is not until the age of 25 that one will be mature. The National Institutes of health have shown how the brain of a teenager has a weak link that weighs risks, makes judgements, and controls impulsive behavior. This is means the teenagers brain is not mature enough to handle the responsibility that comes with driving. Just like in the Allstate commercials where the man is speaking and you can see a family having dinner, kids playing in a playground, and other families. Those are the families teenagers will be effecting with their careless driving. In 2003, there were 937 drivers age 16 who were involved in fatal crashes. In those wrecks, 411 of the 16 year olds drivers died and 352 of their passengers where killed. 16 year old drivers are involved in fatal crashes at a rate nearly 5 times of drivers 20 and older. When a teenager is travelling 15 to 20 miles per hour over the speed limit, the part of his or her brain that processes a thrill is working brilliantly, but the part that warns of negative consequences? Is all but useless. For the safety of our young drivers and to avoid the lose of a young loved one, I urge a strong vote on the affirmation of the resolution.
Raising the Driving Age to 21

A tree never hits an automobile except in self defense. ~American Proverb Peer pressure will not be solved by raising the driving age because then the pressure will be to drive illegally. If you had to wait 3 extra years after high school to be able to drive then the trip to the corner market will seem all the more appealing. And when you have friends over at your house and you are all being dumb, then no one will want to ask their Mom or Dad to drive them because that is just uncool. Therefore the pressure will actually be on driving illegally.
God's existence

What I am trying to say is that god may or may not exist but there is substantial evidence towards showing god does exist. The probability of life beginning on Earth is tiny. The chemical composition of the planet had to be perfect for the development of life, as did its position of orbit around the sun, since if it had been slightly farther away it would have been too cold for life to develop, while it if had been slightly closer, it would have been too hot. Furthermore, the evolution of human beings, with free will and intelligence, was even less likely. Had the universal constants " e.g. gravity, strong and weak forces " been different, the Universe would have been very different, and might well have been unable to sustain life 1. Only through design could the Universe possibly be the way it is, conducive to life on Earth.