BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Seahawks vs. Packers

I will break this into two different arguments. Each one will individually refute the resolution, however, only one needs to be held as true. 1) Interception. Allow me to first cite the NFL Rule Book Definitions [1] as well as the Rule Book on Passes [2], as we will be returning to these several times. Let us look at Rule 3, section 2, Article 7, " A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). " From this we can determine that for a pass to be simultaneously caught, possession needs to occur at the same time (or at least reasonably the same time). Turning to the video (we will turn to it again later), at time 0:34, we can see that Tate's right hand leaves the ball (leaving only one hand on the ball), this establishes that he did not have a firm grip on the ball and thus did not have the simultaneous catch. 2) Pass Interference. The second main issue is with the pass interference that occurred. If we turn back to time 0:30 we can see that Tate shoved number 37 to the ground prior to his attempt for the ball while it was in the air. Let us look to Rule 8, Section 5. This lays out what pass interference is. "It is pass interference by either team when any act by a player more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible receiver"s opportunity to catch the ball. " Shoving a player to the ground clearly falls under this (as they mention), "Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass. " as well as, "Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball. " It should go without saying that the pass interference would wipe out the TD (and with no time left, be the end of the game). I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and this chance to show that TD should not have been called a TD under the written rules in the rule book. Thank you, [1] . http://static.nfl.com... [2] video . http://www.youtube.com...
Seahawks vs. Packers

According to the NFL rulebook, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5, it says this, "If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball." Also, in this video(http://www.nfl.com...), the argument for Tate having possession of the ball is much stronger; his hand NEVER came off of the football. Even if they had been real referees, it would have been ruled a touchdown because Tate's hand NEVER LEFT the football. This is a simultaneous catch. Therefore, according to NFL rulebook, if both teams have possession of the ball at the time they go down, or at the time the play is stopped, it is ruled a touchdown by the OFFENSE. So therefore, the Seahawks did have a valid touchdown. http://static.nfl.com...
Reasons for accepting atheism and not the god according to the bible inwhich nobody can prove exists

Argument:Atheism is one who disbeliefs in the absence of god. But what evidence do they have god does not exist? They just rely on a fictional book called the bible right? Well I dont think or at least personally I think atheists need to think twice before they come to a conclusion that god does not exist and hence atheism should be accepted. Here is some evidence god exists: Miracle if lanciano: https://en.m.wikipedia.org.... Bear in mind the piece of flesh was a muscle next to the heart where during the 8th century there was no way to take it out so this could not have been a hoax. Miracle of Therese Neuman: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com... There are so many other miracles which scientifically cannot be explained because the definition of miracles(for the dummies here) according to an online cambridge dictionary is:an unusual and mysterious event that is thought to have been caused by a god because it does not follow the usual laws of nature. Hence I dont think atheism should be accepted as they say there is no evidence of god as mentioned in the topic it says:which no one can proove exists. Obviously they havent done their research. Rebuttal(s): My opponent said and I quote,"Also you show me anywhere in the bible where it says something to the effect of "I the lord thy god grants man free will" ." Surely he/she has not read Galathians 5:13 in the bible which states:You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh ; rather, serve one another humbly in love. So there is a mention of free will just that it tells us not to abuse it. My opponent also said and I quote,"Suffering, horrific pain and torture exists occurs throughout the bible. god is the absolute 100% cause of it otherwise god is not god." If he/she had read the bible he/she obviously hasnt read it properly as the name of a demon called satan exists. And he is the one responsible for suffering and torture to occur. To make things fair,ill look at the only source my opponent probrably just looks at which is the bible: psalm 106:37-38:37 They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to false gods. 38 They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood. This showed that satan in a way tortured them to sacrifice their own kids to him. Even today he is possessing those weak in spirit. So why blame god?
Reasons for accepting atheism and not the god according to the bible inwhich nobody can prove exists

Rebuttal on video(math of the flood): -"It could not have happened naturallistically." With god,events such as these do not have a scientific reason which is probrably the reason why we use the term miracle which means events that isnt explicable by natural or scientific laws and hence attributed to divine agency?(duh...) This point already then tells us that the flood existed as it isnt explicable by natural or scientific laws,so Im not gonna bother with the rest of the video. Rebuttal on video(how archeology says otherwise about the flood): -"There is no exact date on the day of the flood." But we have of sorts a date closer to when the flood occured which I guess most of all of us can agree is evidence:http://www.biblearchaeology.org... -Assuming the flood didnt kill anyone on earth,the speaker stated that the summarian king did say there was a flood. So this is coming from 2 sources now. If you say the bible is fictional,re watch the video. For the rest of the videos,I just have to say one thing:with god,no natural or scientific laws can explain any of these so this is what we call:lack of evidence. This says it all as a rebuttal on why god hates children:https://www.google.com.sg.... Ladies and gentlemen we can tell that in the 1700"s they banned the process of mummification or didnt practice it anymore. If it still were then let me clarify even more: This is the process of mummification:https://www.si.edu... first step wasnt carried out on saint bernedatte(ok it was actually just after we found her body not decomposed. She died before she was known as a saint). And obviously we dont see saint bernedatte wrapped around with cloth to absorb moisture. Why? Her body wasnt even touched! So are there any natural or scientific laws that can explain this and hence not attribute this to divine agency? In conclusion ladies and gentlemen, with the lack of evidence that god does not exist(as obviously science cant proove as he works miracles), I dont think atheism should be accepted.For those who dont look at the bigger picture and have not yet asked God into their heart, God has a special invitation"and a special promise: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him" (Revelation 3:20).
Reasons for accepting atheism and not the god according to the bible inwhich nobody can prove exists

Honestly, I don"t know how you win a debate by just counter arguments but I"ll just play ball. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Rebuttal: they missed out:without any evidence to support their cause. You dont believe that the bible consists of true stories. Proof there was evidence of true stories in the bible:https://listverse.com.... Miracle of the sun is an optical illusion Rebuttal: read the whole story when the miracle was first shown and read this:https://skeptoid.com... Athetists only uses science and other reasons to deny god and other superior beings. Obviously they havent looked at the bigger picture(eg saying the ark is a fantasy,they might wanna look at d link of evidence of the ark). I mean Ill bet my faith in god and Im going to bet that atheism is worthy of worship of which up till now my opponent has done a very bad job in doing,cant proove god does not exist. Hes relying on just quotes and counteracting everything but with just these quotes and finding faults in the bible, if we throw them a miracle(eg staircase of st joseph,miracle of lanciano,the incorruptable bodies) I want to see if they can counteract anything about the miracle. So counteract this my good friend. Please bear in mind the piece of flesh in the miracle of lanciano was a piece of flesh next to the heart where during that time there was no way to cut it out so how can we hoax such a thing? And if you cant give me solid evidence to not believe in god, we can then affirm the fact atheism is not worthy of worship or as(I think) Pilate said:not worth the dirt on my shoe. """"""""""""""""""Moving On"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" God hates kids: Rebuttal:https://www.google.com.sg... If god hates kids,why does he say that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these? Yes maybe he was cruel to take them in such a manner but wouldnt we rejoice for they have entered the kingdom of heaven? Before you say heaven is fake, watch this:https://youtu.be.... Impossible a 4 year old kid would know about sucht things.
The Physical World We Experience Is Most Likely Fundamentally Mental

Well, it seems as if my opponent forfeited. Anyway, We have good reasons to believe that integrated information complex is consciousness[http://www.biolbull.org...], and at the very least a complex integrated information system at a maxima is an identifier of it. How does this support Idealistic Panentheism? Well, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (as it describes all information of the possible states of the universe), The Holographic Principle, Digital Physics, and QIT tell us that the universe reduces to information. You have a rock, what does it reduce to... Atoms? What do they reduce to...Particles? What do they reduce to... Quantum vibrations? What do they reduce to? The answer is information. The universe is a complex of information, and this information is integrated (as an integrated system is one that is not decomposable into a collection of causally independent parts). This means the universe is actually conscious state, God, who also transcends the universe and is logically prior to it due to its contingent properties. Since consciousness is a mental, and exists in a mind, then the physical world we experience is fundamentally mental. The resolution has been established (again). Also, if Stephen Hawking's colleague Roger Penrose is correct, then a self-collapsing wave-function is consciousness. However, since there is no physical system to collapse the universal wave-function from outside the universe (any causally interacting universe, from the multiverse, would share the same wave-function as our universe), then this means the universe's wave-function is self-collapsing (and thus self-observing), and thus phi (the wave-function of the universe) actually is God. A grand conscious, and mental state. Since it is fundamentally grounded in math, this entails ontologically timeless platonic forms (Also, God is essentially "doing" math as a quantum superposition unfolds!). All my arguments show a clear picture.... Reality is mental. It exists as experiences, thoughts, and feelings in the mind of God. Is this the God of classical religion? I have my doubts, but it is compatible with classical religion. Anyway, see you later!
The Physical World We Experience Is Most Likely Fundamentally Mental

What you speak of, sounds to be akin to Metaphysics. Which if we're going to debate in a whole, we should ensure first, we know the Etymology of the word. Meta, being Greek for " Beyond " and "Physics" Which is where I take a Con position to you, because nothing can be ' beyond ' physics. hear, see, touch, smell and taste, this is our physical world. Making it highly unlikely that a Matrix styled vision that you appear to claim exists. Lets also remember, amongst many of the reputable sciences of physics, Metaphysics is deemed a joke, and not taken seriously, except those of a religious base, but not necessarily pertaining to a 'god' entity persay.
Allow illegal immigrants amnesty.

"I have no facts, honestly. It's all coming from the heart" You saying that makes my point clearer. You cannot decide something based off of what you feel. You have to lookdeeper than that. Once again, my solution to illegal immigrants is to keep them out in the first place. We cannot grant them amnesty now or this will create that "magnet effect" I talked about earlier. We simply cannot do that. "You're right about not having any money" Enough said. "The goal is that we will be able to house more and more people because there will be enough jobs" I would hope that would be our goal. What you are looking for is a utopian society, a perfect society that accepts all and becomes this 'perfect society'. All utopian societies have failed. We cannot become some sort of caregivers to millions that illegally come to the United States. We have laws for a reason. Legal immigrants, come on in. Thank you for participating in this debate. Good luck on the results.
Allow illegal immigrants amnesty.

I have no facts, honestly. It's all coming from the heart because there aren't any facts that honestly support my opinion. That's the problem with these kinds of topics because the defense can just be more personal than anything. Yes, we have legal immigration" so what are we going to do with the 70,000 kids that Congress has allowed to enter the country because of persecution in their country. Are we just going to pick and choose which ones are just going to come in? You're right about not having any money (though I'm not going to go into blaming any particular president) but we are slowly creating more jobs. Barack Obama in his latest term ~ 1.8% increase Read article here: http://en.wikipedia.org... The goal is that we will be able to house more and more people because there will be enough jobs. It will be a slow process, but hopefully we'll make it. If you just cut illegal immigration entirely, yes it will be helping stop people trying to cross our borders for bad reasons but it's also shutting out millions of children and adults who are fleeing for actual reasons (like persecution) (I can feel myself parroting what I've said in previous topics, I'm a bit of a broken record on this topic now, forgive me)
Allow illegal immigrants amnesty.

What you lack in your argument is facts. That is what I will provide this round. You continue to talk about that we need to help the threatened and oppressed people from other countries. You are truly talking from the heart. Your heart tells you that we must and need to help all of the people that we possibly can. Once again we cannot. You said "I don't think the whole"magnet" idea is going to get as extreme as you propose". It has. look at this chart. http://www.pewhispanic.org.... Not only does it show a steady increase in illegal immigration, but this is the America with illegal immigration laws. Imagine what would happen if we showed that we grant amnesty to the millions, then millions more would come. You then stated, "The whole world is not made up of terror-struck and third world countries. There are millions of people who are happy where they are. Unfortunately, most people in third world countries probably won't even be able to make it...". I would like you to scroll down on this website here http://www.globalissues.org.... It states that almost 3 billion people and counting live in poverty. What you stated is simply not true. There are 2.2 billion children in the world. 1 billion children are currently in poverty. 640 million have inadequate shelter. 400 million have no access to safe water. 270 million have no access to health services. Those facts are just out of the 2.2 billion children in the world. Since you said that they will not be able to come to the United States easily because they live too far away here are more facts. http://m.huffpost.com.... 45.5 percent of Mexicans are in poverty. That is 45.5 percent of 122.3 million, which is the population it was in 2013. Imagine this plus all the central American countries, South American, and others how many people in poverty live so close to the United States. Third world countries also are not in the best government controlled areas. A lot are dictatorships, or some sort of oppressive governments. As I said before America is like a melting pot. What makes us a great nation is the cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity. That is why we still continue to have legal immigration. We do not have the money or resources to help the millions. We are barely getting out of a recession as it is right now. Having room is not the problem. There is room, but not the money or resources. This is my second debate on this website, but I love debating these topics with my friends and family, but I appreciate you accepting this debate once again. It keeps me on my toes. My solution to illegal immigration is to prevent it from happening in the first place. That is the best solution. Having a better border security is essential to any country, including the United States.
Allow illegal immigrants amnesty.

I'm very sorry I'm new to this site, I didn't realize the whole "I accept" statement. I really don't see how stopping the whole cycle would be a good thing" Just because we have people illegally entering our country, we have to take it away and spoil it for other people that are trying to enter for valid reasons? Maybe we should propose stronger border laws for illegal immigrants instead of taking the whole thing away. If there was some sort of system where children and adults that felt threatened in their country to send some kind of form into the government" because technically you do need a visa/refugee status when entering the United States. I don't know whether it's fear or lack of time that keeps them from getting a visa or a refugee status but our immigration system is very complicated. I don't think the whole "magnet" idea is going to get as extreme as you propose. The whole world is not made up of terror-struck and third world countries. There are millions of people who are happy where they are. Unfortunately, most people in third world countries probably won't even be able to make it to the United States because they are so far away. Most illegal immigrants are from Mexico because they are close enough to cross the border. When you say "you can't help everyone" that's true. We can't individually help each person that enters the United States, but we can at least let them enter. I feel like you were just wording your statement as another way of saying "we don't have enough room". Forgive me if I am wrong, but that is the kind of feeling I'm getting. There is enough room for these people in the United States. That is a given. Millions of children are being born right this very second, and unfortunately, there are people dying this very second in the United States. We have room for them! Granted, these children are being born into families that will hopefully keep them in their home and won't live on the streets. You prove a very good argument, and I do feel myself losing already (this is my first debate so this was kind of "testing the waters" for me). Just to kind of clear this up, are you proposing that we don't let illegal immigrants into the United States? When they show up at the border, we just make them return to their country? If that is the case, I think that we should have them fill out necessary paperwork in a safe place so they don't have to return to their country. We can see if they are really fleeing for valid reasons, and then we can let them in. Thanks :)
Allow illegal immigrants amnesty.

I realize that this is a very important topic that many people are interested in. First, what is illegal immigration? Illegal immigration is the migration of people across national borders, or the residence of foreign nationals in a country, in a way that is illegal according to the immigration laws of the destination country. There are two types of immigration in the United States as of March 2014. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org... The first type is family immigration. The second type is permanent/temporary immigration. There is actually a section about illegal immigrants coming from different countries. We currently let in around 70,000 immigrants each year from different countries. This is mainly because of persecution in their birth country. Now, imagine that you are a child in ____(insert country here). Bloody battles ensue, you are getting persecuted, and your parents don't have any money. Life is terrible in this country, and you think that going to the United States would be the best option. You flee there, and just as you get there you aren't allowed. Are you supposed to go back to your country now and face more persecution? I honestly see nothing wrong with immigration. They aren't doing it illegally because there are specific instructions congress has set up for refugees fleeing their homes. They can have just as much success and will hopefully get a job and grow up happily. I'm interested in how my opponent will respond.
A functioning society can be maintained along the Non-aggression principle.

A note about the phrase 'maintained along,' though: The NAP is a moral principle, not a political system, and as such I do not necessarily believe (or cannot prove,) that a system could exist and be practiced in which nobody would ever initiate force. I accept the premise in the sense that I believe that the NAP is a valid moral code and that society moving toward it in any way (ie, reducing or getting rid of Government,) is an improvement. I believe that a society could maintain itself and function in a way very close to the NAP, compared to the current system, and compared to any system we have known before.