BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously

This is a completely specious argument masquerading as truth. "So rather than being a proof of nonexistence"I never said this, I said he can't be both omniscient and omnipotent. "His inability to contradict Himself is proof of His perfection"No, It's proof of his impotence. Temporality is irrelevant. No matter when/how God created the universe or whether he exists everywhere all the time, He has used his omnipotence to create and his omniscience to oversee, Judge, Etc. He should also be able to use that omniscience to know what will happen at any point in space or time. Regardless of his temporal dynamic, This is necessarily the case by definition of omniscience. He should be able to make changes to this future at any moment.
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously

Con, Thank you. Con is still arguing using categorical error by conflating God's nontemporal position outside time with our temporal perception of time. The straw god Con is presenting is not the God to whom omniscience and omipotence are properly ascribed. This fallacy continues in Cons premise: if God can not change what He has established, Then He is impotent. This is illogical in that it states, 'if God can not contradict Himself, Then He does not exist'. God's omniscience and omnipotence can not be separated from His perfect wisdom in His decree of all reality, So rather than being a proof of nonexistence, His inability to contradict Himself is proof of His perfection. God's power functions logically, In accord with His perfection.
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously

It is irrelevant whether God does change his mind or ever needs to. If we wanted to, He should be able to. If he is able to create the future of the entire universe, Dictating the movement of every single subatomic particle at every moment, Surely he would know what is going to happen at any given moment. It's not a prediction in the way a psychic sees the future, But it is akin to the way in which I would be able to tell you what slide came next in a presentation if I was the one who built it. If I built a presentation that I knew was absolutely perfect, Whatever that means, There would be no "need" for me to change my mind. However, If I truly had control over it, I could mix up the slides at my will. Proof by contradiction.
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously

I did not claim God experiences time linearly as we do. My opponent is still forcing an omniscience that predicts the future rather than being immediately aware of it into the argument. This precludes the continuing of the debate, As this point has been answered previously. Also, My opponent, In stating "He could change [H]is mind", Indicates a misunderstanding of my previous point, "God does not 'change the future', As if He is separated from it by time, But rather, He is involved in His creation in its entirety". This means that whatever happens is the unchanged work of God. My opponent is still trying to view non temporal activity from a temporal perspective. God does not change His mind, Nor does He need to.
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously

If God exists outside of time, Then it is nonsense to say that he also experiences time in the linear fashion we do and sees things as they are currently. "Currently" and "now" are meaningless words to a being that exists outside of time. If you mean that He sees things as they are at "all" times as in the future and past, Then he should know the future and, Thus, Be omniscient. Further, If he is truly omnipotent, He should be able to make a plan for the arrangement of all future states of the universe and stick to that plan. In that way, He'd be able to accurately predict the future. If his is omniscient and makes a prediction, It necessarily must be right. But, He could change is mind, And thus be wrong.
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously

Hello Bertrands, I am looking forward to the debate. God's omniscience does not allow Him to predict the future, As if He was experiencing time in the same linear fashion we are. God, Being eternal, Is "outside" time so to speak. This means He sees things as they are at all times, Not ever as they will be. This being the case, God does not "change the future", As if He is separated from it by time, But rather, He is involved in His creation in its entirety. Therefore, There is complete unity in His omniscience and omnipotence. The temporal restraints you have placed on the nontemporal God have led to contradictions where there are none. Respectfully, dbox
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously

If god were omniscient, He would be able to use the state of the universe at any given time to predict the state at any future time. However, If he were omnipotent, He could change that future in which case his prediction was wrong and he would not be omniscient. If he was unable to change the future, He would not be omnipotent. Another way to put this would be to say that, If God were truly omniscient, He would already know how we was going to alter the course of events in the future using his omnipotence. However, This means that he can't change *that* change, Which means he isn't omnipotent.
Should all States Follow Vermont Style Gun Control

Though my opponent has already described what the Vermot Style Gun Control, I'd prefer to also implicate it in my argument as well.The Vermont Style Gun Control policies permit people to openly purchase firearms for both hunting and defense, and it not necessary to have a permit or background check to conceal and carry a weapon [1]. I, by no means, agree nor disagree with the belief that the ownership of firearms will reduce crime rates, but that will not be the main focus of my objection to the Vermont Style Gun Control. The focal point of my argument is how background checks and permits do not play a factor in the ownership of a firearms.Background checks are reviews of a person's criminal history and medical problems. They're used to assess whether a person is capable of responsibly using a gun or not. I believe that the lack of background checks and not needing a permit is a fatal flaw in Vermont Style Gun Control. For example, if a person has a turbulent criminal history of assaults and such, a background check would likely prevent this person from owning a gun. However, not needing a permit or background check means that even the most dangerous people could obtain a firearm. Sources:1) http://gun.laws.com...;
Should all States Follow Vermont Style Gun Control

You can post rebuttals and arguments in round 3 but no rebuttals in round 2, please. Good Luck! For those that don't know "Vermont Gun Control" is very relaxed yet we still have a low crime rate. Vermont is not required to enter state background checks, although federal is required. Anyone can carry a handgun anywhere except for Courthouses and schools. Under 16 needs parental permission, however. Vermont had a 115 per 100,000 in 2012 - 2014 (Official Reports) violent crime rate, even though we have major drug issues. The reason I think gun control this relaxed works is because not many people choose to break into people's homes or mug people because anyone could have a gun.
Winter Tourney: Gun Rights

';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^';',.':">":":;;';'.';,8**(&*%^&*$%#$%&$%&^*$#%^&#$&*^&*^(&$*%^&#$%$#^&^*&(^&%^&$^%#$^&^$!(@#@*%#@*##~!#!~&^(#^&#^&*!#~^*#@&*#^ ^!(*#~!^~(!@&!@#&@
Winter Tourney: Gun Rights

This Debate about gun control. Basically, I allow guns when my opponent doesn't. Thanks for Hayd to make the winter tournament, and Solon to be my opponent. It's the second time I have to write this, and I do not like it, and it will be way shorter than the first one.1. Acceptance only2. Arguments only3. Rebuttals4. Defense/ Conclusion, no new arguments. Rights: Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as lawand ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology. You know what a gun is.
Teenage mutant nija turtles are doper than ever

bruhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... homie I lke chicken pot pie and the teenage mutant ninja turtles are lit
Teenage mutant nija turtles are doper than ever

The FitnessGram Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test that progressively gets more difficult as it continues. The 20 meter pacer test will begin in 30 seconds. Line up at the start. The running speed starts slowly but gets faster each minute after you hear this signal bodeboop. A sing lap should be completed every time you hear this sound. ding Remember to run in a straight line and run as long as possible. The second time you fail to complete a lap before the sound, your test is over. The test will begin on the word start. On your mark. Get ready!" Start. dingA279;
Debate.org supports every known terrorist and criminal organization in the world

I'm quite unsure what that whole rant about leaked information and sex trafficking was about. However I find it pretty ridiculous that Con thinks Debate.org discriminates. I have yet to see a reason why DDO wouldn't support terrorist and criminal organizations. DDO isn't a vigilantly service, it's a debating website.I'm quite sure, were a terrorist group to log on to the internet and visit DDO, that the website would be supported. Nowhere in this website's rules does it state that a criminal would be unable to use this site.Pro must have this debating website confused. It supports all platforms, all types of people and all types of groups. I require no anonymous sources or under-the-radar deals. Simply ask a terrorist group to log on to Debate.org and watch the website work completely fine. This website will support a terrorist without a problem.
Debate.org supports every known terrorist and criminal organization in the world

I will take the con position. I have not found or heard this is true. I believe debate.org is a great company that supports the United States, its military, and the American way of life. I have found zero evidence that debate.org supports every known terrorist organization in the world including ISIS, al-Qaida, elements in Iran that want to use nuclear weapons against Israel and US allies, Mexican drug cartels such as the sinaloa cartel, the Russian mob, groups involved in sex trafficking, human rights abuses, and others who commit atrocities around the world. The person who take the pro would likely have to be a high ranking official inside the CIA, DOD, State Department, NSA, or have access to classified information or have a high security clearance in those organizations. They would likely believe it is time to leak this information, not because they want to win the debate but because they love the United States"its allies, democracy, peace, freedom and liberty around the world and have a profound hatred for those that support atrocities and human rights abuses for their own profit or due to the sick joy they find in human suffering. I am just an average citizen. I do not have access or know anonymous sources who could provide that information. As far as I know debate.org is the best website in the world and supports the US more than Ronald Reagan. In fact, my understanding is everyone at that organization supports the troops, salutes the flag, and begins every workday with the pledge of allegiance and a group prayer, asking Jesus his country that "shining city upon a hill." Because my opponent would want to protect his or her own safety I imagine they will have to rely on anonymous sources like anonymous sources in the Department of Defense or anonymous sources inside the Central Intelligence Agency, or other anonymous sources which would be quoted as: [Anonymous officials from the Pentagon] revealed "[this is where evidence would be provided for terrible crimes, some that would be hard to even imagine, or even ridiculous. Thankfully, I am just an average citizen who has zero evidence or even remotely believes that evidence exist that would prove my position false.
Star Wars > Star Trek

I'll keep the bulk of my rebuttals escononced for now, simply for the sake of some chronology to my side. As such, I'll keep this mostly to my own argument for now.I believe Star Trek is more impressive than Star Wars as per the following reasons.Audience AesopMore than likely, a tendency you're not oblivious to is the tendency to have a lesson taught in shows. The audience has to learn something. The audience must be an Aesop.Often, a media production is evaluated, not only by the effectiveness of its own existence but, by the notion implied as a lesson, or the lesson explicitly said.That said, Star Trek's lessons are definitely more relevant. Star Wars has Yoda delve into philosophy. His philosophies are philosophies which we would categorize as those we have already considered[1], him having not added much onto the pre-existent wisdom, and those that he himself has a lot of trouble justifying, and justifying the violation of.[2] Or his advice is simply not that that would make an Aesop of the audience at all.[3]Two well known instances would be: "Do or do not. There is no try."; "Hate...leads to suffering."The violation of a well formed Aesop is clear in both. If a necessity to clarify arises, then I hope my opponent requests it so I may comply. Otherwise, I don't believe that's necessary.On the other hand, Star Trek certainly has Aesops throughout the show.[4][5][6]Influence on TechnologyStar Trek is known for influencing several aspects of our culture, including our culture overall. However, I don't verily don't believe any of those arguments are necessary yet, so I'll simply bring it to attention that Star Trek has a huge influence on technology.[7]As I have several debates to attend to, this one has been kept rather short, though I'm sure this is plenty for my opponent to rebut. Good luck! http://tvtropes.org... http://tvtropes.org... http://tvtropes.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://thoughtcatalog.com... http://www.thefrisky.com... http://www.howstuffworks.com...
Star Wars > Star Trek

I don't believe I'd be very likely to be acquiescing to my opponent's will to end this debate anti-climatically. So, I'll create a conclusion for this debate.Inherently Influential ImageryAristotle's Six Elements of Drama [1][2]: Language Theme Plot Spectacle Music Character For a select number of these, I've already made an argument. For instance, Theme. See Audience Aesop. My opponent made an argument for Spectacle. I've made an argument against character for Star Wars, which my opponent did not refute. In summation: Language: Neglected Theme: Star Trek Plot: Neglected Spectacle: Star Wars Music: Neglected Character: Star Trek Inherently Influential Influence Both parties of this debate argued for the influence that each franchise has made. I don't believe any attempts at quantification for this have been made necessary, so this can easily be neglected. Overall, this has been rather disappointing. Nonetheless, I'm glad that this topic was brought up. http://bellevuecollege.edu... http://homepage.smc.edu...
Star Wars > Star Trek

I don't believe my opponent is arguing his point right now.An Apparent Plethora of Pestilential PlagiarismMy opponent's last round consisted of one sentence."Way to copy everything from Wikipedia."This doesn't argue for Star Wars being superior to Star Trek in any way, but I'll rebut it anyways for the sake of Conduct.Now, you'll probably notice that I cited my sources. Sources definitely not cited by Wikipedia, nor are these in Wikipedia's description of Star Trek or Star Wars, nor are the citations themselves Wikipedia!Also, there's some glaring hypocrisy in this statement, following my opponent's logic, as nearly his entire argument in the second round is using external sources.Way to copy everything from a popular forum.This may not be true, it may simply be a wild, way off assumption, but I believe my opponent didn't prepare much of an argument and is now attempting to evoke a rise out of me so I lose Conduct points so that my opponent can win the debate riding off of that. If that's not true, I'd like my opponent to explain his reason for such an accusation.To emphasize it more, because I really believe my opponent should've actually created a debate with the intention of debating, my opponent did not create an argument.
Washington State's Initiative 522 does more harm then good

Thank you for conceding to my point about 522"s arbitrary exemptions. You are correct, explicit songs are labeled and movies are rated to protect/direct certain age groups. But GMO products ARE currently labeled! Look for the "USDA Organic" label and you will be buying a non-GMO product. Not only is there a label that does the exact same thing but with different wording, but to add another label would be expensive to farmers and producers " especially if that expense is unnecessary. The "Yes on 522" official website (www.yeson522.com) states that it "won"t cost a dime." But if the law had been implemented, it would have created new costs for farmers in the fields of labeling, packaging, and recordkeeping of forced GE farmers to switch to more expensive, non-GE products to keep their businesses and their homes in Washington State. Not only that, but that price carries onto us, the consumers, and cost Washingtonians hundreds extra per year on groceries. To be exact, our grocery bills would go up by $360 through 2019. After 2019, it would go up by $490 according to the Washington State Wire. AND it would have cost taxpayers millions to fund the monitoring of GE products. The designers of this bill were trying to help Washington farmers have an advantage over large corporate industries using GE products, but in reality it would put them at a disadvantage for having to sell their product for more because of new costs and labeling. 522 also discourages farmers to use crops resistant to pests and disease and requiring less pesticides and water: GE crops. You said that a Muslim might resort to eating no meat because they"re afraid of eating the wrong type. If so, then 522 is not the answer because it might fool them. Just look at the list of exemptions I listed in my above argument In fact, I-522 would fool them into thinking that they are 100% guaranteed to avoid meat restricted from their dietary habits when in reality, by eating out or eating foods from foreign countries, a Muslim might accidentally be eating the wrong foods. You also said that the company is not necessarily testifying that its product shouldn"t be bought. The whole idea of 522 is to keep people from buying GMO"s! So not buying foods labeled "genetically engineered" would be the goal of 522. Cigarettes are a whole different topic because they are widely known to have terrible consequences on your health. Not everybody knows that GMO"s are harmless, which is the problem. I understand your concern that people have the right to know what"s in their food. And they do! They only have to look for the USDA Organic label, and they would have their answer.
Washington State's Initiative 522 does more harm then good

Although I agree with you that the exemptions you mentioned for certain food products are absolutely ridiculous, I think that people should now how their food is made and/or it came from. For the same reason that songs are labeled "explicit", movies are rated for certain age groups, and TV shows get rated by websites. People just like to know if something is right for them. If a Muslim walks into a Stop and Shop, reads the labels and sees that a meal that has ham in it, and puts it back on the shelf, do you think that the management will get pissed at them for not buying it? No. The same concept applies for GMOs: A shopper would read the label, see that it's genetically modified, and put it back. Even if eating ham isn't really bad hygiene or GMOs don't really kill you, everybody is entitled to their own beliefs. Although I personally believe that GMOs are fine to eat, people should have their suspicions acknowledged. If none of the meals were labeled, then the Muslim might resort to eating no meat at all because they didn't want to risk eating the wrong type. That might put even more companies in danger. By stating on the package/box that the food is genetically modified, the company is not necessarily testifying that its product shouldn't be bought, in fact, stating that its food is a GMO is completely objective/impartial, whatever you want to call it. From that point on, it is completely the customer's decision whether to buy the food or not. For example, everyone knows that on every individual pack of cigarettes there is a label that states that the user can get cancer(s) and complications if you are pregnant. By mentioning this, the Surgeon General is saying the truth, not speaking specifically against the purchase of cigarettes.