BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible Qualifies as a Collection of Fairy Tales - B

Some responses: >> "[ME - the witches in the bible are the mystical kind] - No I said they were not the mythical type. What he said was "The type of witches the Bible talks about are ones which curse people, meddle with the dead, and call spirits." He has conceded that the bible talks about characters that require magical power. >> "Sure. Deciding a date for which time period the Homo sapiens skeletons. This would be a different debate. Could be that these Homo sapiens lifed after the flood, since they are humans." I'm puzzled by this. Humans were clearly around before the great flood. Homo Sapiens have been around for more than a million years... >> "I believe that Satan has cleverly tricked some of us in believing in evolution." This makes my day. ************************************ I have no idea why my opponent wastes space discussing the character of God and the comparison to evolution, but on to the actual points in the round! On the Red Sea. Here is a picture of the "chariot wheel" from my opponent's source: (http://www.wnd.com...) It looks like a hunk of coral to me. Simply because an amateur diver is "99.9% sure" he has a wheel does not indicate the story is true. On Jonah and the Fish. My opponent does nothing to address the notion that a sea monster, whale, or great fish could swallow a man whole for three days and then conveniently spit him up on or near the beach. This story is obviously a fairy tale of quite incredible content. On The Creation of Earth and Man Again - I'm puzzled by the discourse on evolution, creation, love, the big bang, and God's power... this is about how God supposedly created the world in seven days and man from dirt, and woman from man's rib. Again - obviously a fairy tale of incredible content. On The Temptation of Adam/Eve Come now - two people created the human race? This doesn't account for genetic diversity, let alone the fact that the minimum viable long-term human population is something like 10,000 (http://alfin2100.blogspot.com...). *********************************** As this is my last post, I should sum up... My opponent has not addressed nearly all of the points I have made, and has provided an inadequate defense of each of the positions. My characterizations of these points remains the same - they are stories about magical creatures, or contain incredible and/or unbelievable content. Ergo, they are fairy tales. AFFIRMED.
Infanticide is morally permissable.

You made a few statements, Im going to go ahead and look at them. - Babies are people. - Babies feel pain. - My logic indicates that killing mentally disabled people is ok. - Something about potential? Or tangibility? - Babies are people. So. Yes. Babies are alive, they are people, they are greatn and stuff. No argument. I did and do contest that they are not concious and moreover that we only grant rights to things with concious minds. Squirrels, right? They are just really hairless squirrles who, if you wait long enough, will be people. Squirrels feel pain, and could also be inaccurately compared to the mentally disabled if you wanted to. The mentally disabled thing. So I would obviously say that generally speaking they still have a developed sense of self, and can speak, and so are excluded by the logical brightline I created. If you want to argue that they -don't- and that they can't? Fine. yes. Anything that falls below my line of concious thought? I am game for killing. Under my rights framework and aesthetic framework. The argument from potentiality is dumb, if you wanted to make it, I would have rebutted it. The argument from tangibility, I am assuming, is that all things that are corporeal have the right to corporeality. See: squirrels. My aesthetic argument, which I really think is clever and funny, justifies killing one of any, and probably every, thing just to enforce whatever intuition we have. It is untouched and I think carries the day. Somehow.
Infanticide is morally permissable.

just because they don't have a conscious mind doesn't mean they aren't people. It doesn't mean they don't feel pain. Why do you think they cry? Because they are uncomfortable. Following your logic, it could seem that a mentally disabled person could be killed, because they have the brain of an infant. There is potential for life to be there, and it is tangible life right now. Babies aren't fetuses, they are living creatures outside of their mother's womb.
Infanticide is morally permissable.

So my argument is: "this kind of murder is morally permissible" Then your argument runs: "but this is murder!" And I know that, it is murder. The topic can be read as: "Murder is only bad when you are murdering something that has rights. Babies do not have rights. Therefore, murdering babies is ok." The argument that I laid forward attacked the rights claims of infants based on them not being concious beings, not having a mind to make claim the right to life. I'm going to advance another argument here, mostly for the fun of it. So my exact topic is that infanticide is morally permissible, which doesnt suggest that I think it should always be done, in fact I would suggest it should almost never be done because there will usually be a competing rights claim from the parents of the infant (property claims are still valid). But if we look at it from this rare-occurence perspective and then impact that through a broader utility calculus involving the intuitions I mentioned in my opening statement, couldn't we justify the apparent immorality of the murder of the weakest kind of human being on the grounds that it provides us with a moral intuition, grounds us in the intuitions we have? This argument is essentially an aesthetic one, proposing that the exemplar of an immoral category of acts is exempt from that immorality because it teaches us about the act and exposes us to our feelings about the act-category. This is a silly argument, but I am now kind of fond of it.
Infanticide is morally permissable.

Right? The argument from potentiality is silly and we locus rights in the concious mind, not in the body. With both of those down it just seems true. The brightline is wierder? But that's a legislative issue, not a moral one. If morality is a question of rights, this statement is true. Presumably it could be untrue given like, a strict utilitarian calculus? And I have no idea why I didnt think of that before? But that still seems flimsy given 1) problems with utilitarianism, and 2) potential utility gained. Most frameworks point this way. Intuition doesn't, and I guess I like intuition, but intuition is a thin framework to hange a pretty heavy statement of moral truth on.
Religion and Sin

But if sin is the disbanded of God why are we born into sin? That makes no sense what so ever. As unborn children we don't do anything physically, cognitively, emotionally in the womb to disobey God. It's not possible. So if we are born into sin without even doing anything wrong, then we're pretty much doomed from the beginning. The notion of us being born into sin means that there is no one on earth who is not a sinner and if sin is disobedience to God then we'er all just disobeying.
If time travel existed, it would destroy free will

Since you are new here, I will point out that you should not try to change the definitions of words that have been defined, unless there is ample reason to do so. In this case, I cited the source for the definition of time travel, plus by defining it, I limited the scope of the debate to only the ability to travel back and forth through time. The reason for this is limited definition is because one-way time travel will be impossible to observe any effect on free will, as any report will be lost in time (either never reported if traveled to future, and past reports may never be reported). As for many-worlds, it would be statistically impossible to find the same universe that lead to the observations needed to determine the effect on free will. Therefore, the only time travel method we will use is back and forth time travel, which was defined in round one. The past cannot be changed. Imagine if I built a time machine, by my own hands, independent of everyone else in the world. Additionally, I never spoke of this to anyone, never told anyone how it works, and never wrote anything down. Could someone go back in time in the very time machine that I invented and kill me to prevent me from building said time machine. Of course, they can't, otherwise, how would the time machine have been built? Using the same situation as above, if my desire/inspiration to build the time machine was to prevent a loved one's death, then if I were to prevent said death, how would the time machine be built? This is the premise to the movie (and I assume the book) The Time Machine. Since free will is independent of any cause, anything that is truly of free will will be undetermined until it occurs. However, since the past cannot be changed, any action in the past will determine the future. But what about the future? The future is just the past from an even further future. So, my actions tomorrow may seem free of cause, but having viewed said actions from a week from now, it is already determined what they will be. Therefore, the future cannot be changed, either. If nothing can be changed, and all will occur as it has been observed, then there can be no free will.
If time travel existed, it would destroy free will

This is straight forward.Time travel is the ability to go back and foward in time.Free will is freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. (Mirram Webster definition)Con may start arguments in Round 1.I am of the opinion that if time travel were possible, it would destroy the ability for humans, or anything, to have free will, as everything would be pre-determined.
Story-writing debate

I've seen quite a few of these types of debate going on before (if they can even be called as a debate). Just like to have one of my own. Idea is to continue a story with your opponent (may as well be called partner). Most interesting continuations win. Additional rules for further clarification: 1. My opponent will start the story in R1. 2. My opponent will not post any story-related content in R5 (R5 is a waster type of round) 3. I will conclude the story in my part in R5 of this "debate". To keep it simple, just follow this settinghttp://www.debate.org...;First round acceptance of rules and the commencement of the story. Thanks!
Global warming a "Human cause?"

1. Humans forcing climate change?My opponent has no correlation or scientific evidence, here is a graph: We see a direct correlation, and this means CO2 likely has an impact.Is it the sun? As I have now proven no natural (the sun) changes are occuring. Also as tempertures rise at alarming rates, the sun is cooling (see graph). Sun spot levels are decreasing 2. Climate gateMy opponent is sorucingclimate gate saying it makes all alarmist evidence invalid, which is false. That is like saying one worm in an apple means all the apples have worms. Citing "fraud" once does not make any of my evidence invalid, as my edivence does not use IPCC data. Meaning this is a red herring.**Note my opponent claims the temperture is driven by natural factors, but a reader would notice what atural factors are these? As he has not shown any, his point is a mere assertion and therefore the only natural factor (the sun) has been refuted. CO2 is the answer. With this pro should already win.3. Cooling (1940-70)I would like to note areosols have been proven to be a factor. My opponent ignores my analysis that areoso are more pwoerful then CO2, therefore he admits this as true as it is droppedAs climate scientists have said: "The post-1940 decline in temperatures appears to be linked to increasing emissions of atmospheric aerosols - another man-made pollutant emitted alongside greenhouse gases - which serve to "mask" the latter's warming effect. When Europe and the US clamped down on aerosol emissions, temperature rise resumed." [http://bit.ly...]As areosols cool and where more plentiful then CO2 back then, areosols had a cooling effect. Once the US cut areosols CO2 became more plentiful, and then was able to remain in control and rise temperture.Climate cycles have been refuted. See graph. Uprecidented warming = unnatural unprecidented CO2. Its not natrural. BOPHe never denies this, he has the BOP. Never explains his "cant prove it", therefore his analysis is a moot. PRO wins this debate.
Global warming a "Human cause?"

"Climate changes based on the forces that cause it, the current forcing is humans."-My opponent -answer:no. Climate change is both natural and human. It can in no way,shape, or form be just humans because the Earth has natural cycles, which is what both Global warming and Cooling are; cycles. The climate is ALWAYS changing not yearly, not weekly, but every second of the day. -The link provided was a mere match up in opposition to what I stated, it included nothing to support the claims, like where the received data is from. I could state anything statistically but SHOULD be able to provide where the statistic or model/piece of data came from. Especially, since scientists have been "caught" much too recently messing with data in order to prove global warming is a Human-made cause strictly. http://www.paulmacrae.com... this link on its first page when opened shows where data came from and out it was altered or misinterpreted, it also included analysis on alarmist theories. 2. Cooling of 1940-70 "Climate scientists acknowledge that the aerosol issue is one of the key uncertainties in their understanding." and yet you are using the aerosol issue to (attempt to) definitively explain the cooling of the 40s-70s? *shakes head* This has never been scientifically backed up. It was mere experimentation. My opponent also neglects to answer why then were their ice ages? Whaaaa? Climate change? Yes. but wait.. there were no humans to cause it with their excess amount of c02? CORRECT. My contender has not refuted anything and has yet to come up with a legitmate argument as to why we are the reason if their were far greater changes without the high c02 levels back millions of years ago! As 97% of scientists beleive we cause global warning, (http://www.skepticalscience.com......) my opponent holds the bop as he is against the science status quo. Back to this website again...sigh -This statistic is negated due to the fact that that cannot possibly be measured!
Global warming a "Human cause?"

My opponents first points are observations which we agree on, now to the fun part. 1. Past climate cycles My opponents argunment is cycles change in the past: it is natural now. Climate changes based on the forces that cause it, the current forcing is humans. Our climate is very sensitive to heat, something this argunment proved ( my opponents). Co2 is known to be able to trap heat and therefore increase heat in the earth, increasing temperatures. (. http://www.skepticalscience.com...) 2. Cooling of 1940-70 This is based on the argunment of look it cooled when Co2 rose. As seen in the global warming swindle. This is true, but easily refuted. Co2 is still capable of a warming effect. The reasons tempertures dropped was due to high areosols. Volcanic activity ruled over our Co2 increase. The warning stopped when we passed clean air acts that lowered aerosol amount. So the cooling was man made, and that forcing overrided co2. Meaning co2 drove the bus after that as no known natural forcing exists today. . http://www.newscientist.com... 3. Co2 They have been increasing at unnaturally high rates meaning co2 is high due to unnatural forcings, in this case it's human emissions . http://co2now.org... Conclusion: As 97% of scientists beleive we cause global warning, (. http://www.skepticalscience.com...) my opponent holds the bop as he is against the science status quo.
Global warming a "Human cause?"

Interesting: Now I am going to start with the "meats and potatoes" of the debate! Global Warming does exist: -The earth has cycles and those cycles have been changing consistently during periods of history and then dramatically during other periods(like ice ages, which have been documented). -Global warming makes up part of these cycles, specifically when there has been devastating droughts. There is more than just "WARMING" -There is such a thing as Global cooling, in which ice ages can be represented. http://en.wikipedia.org... Global warming= the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. http://en.wikipedia.org... -C02 levels have been considered by scientists as the cause. My argument Since the earth has been changing and has had Global warming periods without man's influence with C02 and industry like being warned about today as the cause, there must be more of an influence on the Earth's natural cycle than it being based off of a HUMAN INFLUENCE! Also, some of the coolest temperatures ever recorded throughout the world has been during the 20th-21st centuries http://en.wikipedia.org... here is an explanation about the C02, since currently they are high. -http://news.nationalgeographic.com... My next position after answering the next response by 16, will be to talk about the false data being presented in order to make Global warming seem worse than it is and pinning it on HUMANS! should be interesting...
Child porn should be illegal

"You haven"t stated anything on why it"s good" You haven't stated anything on why it's bad. Also, Off topic. The topic is "Child porn should be illegal", Not "Child porn is bad". And I already said why it should be legal, Because there is no reason to keep it illegal. "your whole last statement is purely based on an assumption" It's based on personal witnessing. You can call it an assumption, But then, In order not to be a hypocrite, You would also need to call all the child porn victim's testimonies assumptions. They say they were violated? That's just their assumption! They say it hurts them? Assumption until proven otherwise! All assumptions!
Child porn should be illegal

"What you are saying is that the video of the child being raped should be legally uploaded to the internet? " Yep. "Please explain to me why that is a good idea. " if I have child porn to share, I won't have to molest children, Or I will be too busy with child porn. Do you want me to molest children? I mean, You might say that I will sooner or later get tired of child porn and go out and molest children. But what if there is no child porn at all? I will get tired immediately and go to rape children right away, Where child porn would held me back and potentially save some children from being molested. "a video of a 5 year old being raped" You just turned me on.
Child porn should be illegal

"Child pornography and child rape is definitely the same topic. " Repeating things doesn't make them true. "A video of a child being raped is still a child being raped. " No. A video of a child being raped is only a video of a child being raped. Not child rape itself. Just like when I click on videos of murder, I am not murdering anyone. "If child pornography is legalised, Then the legal age for sex is reduced, Possibly even removed. " Slippery slope fallacy. "So legalising child porn would also mean legalising child rape. That is why they are the same topic. " Slippery slope fallacy. You use an assumption that legalization of child porn leads to legalization of child rape, To prove the assumption that child porn is bad. Using assumptions to prove assumptions is a fallacy, Because assumptions can't prove assumptions. "Of course it"s relevant. A child cannot consent to having sex for the purpose of child pornography. " You are again assuming that child is being raped because of child porn. You are just repeating assumptions, Not proving them. Further, You are saying that child cannot consent to sex and that's why child porn is bad. That does not make child porn bad in any way, Because child porn is not sex, It is a recording of sex. Just like videos of murder are not murder, But recordings of murder. And we make murder illegal and recordings of murder legal. Using your slippery slope fallacy: "If child pornography is legalised, Then the legal age for sex is reduced, Possibly even removed. " You are basically saying, If we legalize child porn, Child rape will be legalized too. Videos of murder are already legal and murder is not legal. By your logic, Murder should have been legal by now, Because videos of murder are legal. "Recording the rape of a child is someone raping a child. " By your logic, When someone records a murder, He committed a murder? Recording rape is not the same as committing rape. Recording rape does not contribute to rape itself, The same way videos of murder do not make victims any more murdered than they already are. Also, Recording rape does not cause rape. You are somehow trying to argue that child porn is "second rape" of a child. It's not. Child porn is not rape. Video of rape isn't rape. It's a video of rape. The fact that you can't understand the difference between an act and a video of an act is amusing. But no matter how many times you repeat the same thing, It doesn't make it true. Because you aren't proving anything. Just repeating. And I can repeat too. I will still keep saying that child porn is not rape, And until you prove that it is, I will consider by position as accurate.
Child porn should be illegal

Child pornography and child rape is definitely the same topic. A video of a child being raped is still a child being raped. If child pornography is legalised, Then the legal age for sex is reduced, Possibly even removed. And I have already provided some points as to why sex with children I bad. If the legal age is reduced or removed, Then child rape would increase because people would take advantage of the situation and rape children with little to no consequences. So legalising child porn would also mean legalising child rape. That is why they are the same topic. When I said that a child cannot consent to sex, You said "I am not going to argue something irrelevant to the topic. " Of course it"s relevant. A child cannot consent to having sex for the purpose of child pornography. All you have said is that my statements are irrelevant. Which they are not. Recording the rape of a child is someone raping a child. End of story.
Child porn should be illegal

"Child porn and child rape is the same topic. " It's not the same topic. "A child is raped when the video is recorded. " But not because the video is recorded, And recording a video does not cause or contribute to child rape. "I provided an explanation as to how a child is negatively impacted during, And after someone has raped" Off topic again. The topic is child porn, Not child rape. Also explanation isn't proving. "someone has raped them for the purpose of child pornography" Another thing you can't prove. You are saying that child porn is the reason children get raped. You have to provide actual proof on that, And not assumptions like you have done so far. "A child cannot consent to sex. " I am not going to argue something irrelevant to the topic. "So every time someone records child pornography, They are recording child rape. " This doesn't explain why child porn is bad. You can argue that child rape is bad. But child porn is not child rape. Child porn is the video of child rape. You have to prove why videos of child rape should be illegal, And so far you only used circular logic. Videos of child rape should be illegal because they show child rape. Circular logic all over again. I don't know why you challenged me to a debate if you can't stick to the very topic which you have set.
Child porn should be illegal

Child porn and child rape is the same topic. A child is raped when the video is recorded. I provided an explanation as to how a child is negatively impacted during, And after someone has raped them for the purpose of child pornography. A child cannot consent to sex. They most likely cannot even pronounce the word consent, Let alone give it. So every time someone records child pornography, They are recording child rape. They are the same topic. You can not deny that fact.