BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian God's "morality"

This argument shall only debate whether or not the God of Christianity is "morally good". Morally good shall, for the purposes of this debate, be defined as "that which minimizes or eliminates suffering, unhappiness, and conflict which harms individuals or groups." If my opponent disagrees with this definition he may use his first round to propose a new definition, or he may amend the existing definition. All language in this debate must be clear and any attempt to misconstrue the opponents position will not be tolerated. Any terms for which there are several meanings or may contain subjective connotations should be defined in a manner similar to the manner in which I have defined "morally good". Standard rules of debate apply. (No "red herrings","ad hominim", or similar tactics are acceptable.) I expect my opponent to understand and abide by the rules proposed. If my opponent wishes to amend these rules he may do so in the same round as his agreement/disagreement with my definition of "morally good". Without further delay, I shall propose my position to which you may present yours in the same round as the definition agreement/disagreement; this first round is simply to make sure we understand the rules and each others position. The position I choose to take is that of the opponent to the statement "God is morally good". As an extra measure to ensure clarity, this definition of "morally good" is being used because I have found no actions to which an individual has concluded to be morally neutral (that which does not promote or discourage the minimization or elimination of suffering, unhappiness or conflict that harms individuals or groups.) or morally bad (the antithesis of "morally good"). One may be incline point out the glaringly obvious flaw of "You rely a sizable part of your argument to your own personal experience and subjective bases." to which I rebut, "Yes, however, morality is subjective." If one argues it is not, that morality is objective, than one ultimately objects to the idea morality originates from a deity, since a deity is in this instance a subject, as evidenced by the fact that God has opinions which are not based on reason. If one argues that God is the source of objective morality than one is in essence arguing for the statement "Might makes right". Which I hope my opponent is intelligent enough to understand that there is truly no reasoning behind that statement. Thus concludes my opening statements, I await a response.
The Christian God's "morality"

This post is to formally forfeit this argument. The cause for my forfeiture is my recent life events, namely the death of one of my best friends. This situation will require my full attention and will most definitely affect my ability to argue in a rational manner. Although I do have arguments against what pro has put forth I will allow pro to take this debate on the grounds that he has constructively criticized me and has pointed out areas in my presentation that could be improved. Thanks for the good time; I wish the good times could last.
The Christian God's "morality"

The Bomb made a comment that the debate should have less rounds. I agree with him that five round debates can get very repetitive and that is often unfair to the voters. I affirm that I will not repeat any arguments unless I must do so in order to form a response to my opponent if he repeats an argument. But if my opponent does not repeat any arguments either, then the debate should go smoothly and be free of repetitions. I propose that by the end of the third or perhaps the fourth round, if my opponent and I feel that continuing the debate would only result in the repetition of arguments, then we can agree to end the debate there and each of us would simply write "We agree that there are no more rounds" ( or something like that) as our posts for the remaining excess rounds. In other words, I think that both of us should do our best to make this a non-tedious debate. I would like to point out that I disagree with my opponent that there are no morally neutral actions. I believe that most of our daily actions are morally neutral (neither moral nor immoral). When I walk down the street, is my action of walking moral? It does not seem so. Is it immoral? It does not seem so either. This seems to be a non-moral action. But this is a minor point so I won't make a big issue out of it. I don't see how this could practically be discussed about God, so I will defend the morality of God instead of the non-morality. I'd like to slightly modify my opponent's definition of what is morally good. He defines it very negatively, as that which eliminates suffering or harm. I agree with this but would also define it more positively as well, saying that something is morally good which creates happiness, peace, love, etc. I don't think this should change how the debate will go, so it seems like a minor point too. With this, I turn things over to catharsis and I hope this is a good debate.
Gay marriage should be legal in the United States

I will begin this round by pointing out that my opponent provides no evidence for his assertion that gay marriage is a civil right. Because there is no evidence for the claim, it will not be accepted as true. I will continue by quoting my opponent: “Marriage is outside the federal government’s jurisdiction, according to the tenth amendment: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’” My opponent’s quote shows that marriage is an issue for the states to handle, not the federal government. Because the resolution calls for gay marriage to be legal in the United States, and legal in the United States has been accepted to mean federal law, my opponent has himself acknowledged that it is not within the power of the United States to put the resolution into effect. He also says that “While the federal government should have no say in the gay marriage issue, making the federal government unable to ban gay marriage itself unless through an amendment to the constitution.” The federal government is unable to ban gay marriage, likewise, it is not able to legalize it. Thirdly, Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act states: “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship” [1]. This law means that it is up to each state to determine how it wishes to define marriage, and states do not have to accept the same sex marriages of other states. If a state decides to define marriage as an act between a man and a woman, then all laws on marriage only apply to heterosexual marriages. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law [2]. If the law states that marriage is for heterosexual couples, then all that is required is that all heterosexual couples are allowed to take advantage of those laws. My opponent has said “Since there are thousands of laws pertaining to marriage, gay couples should also be protected in their right to marry under state law.” I have shown in this round that because some of these many laws occur in states that have defined marriage as applying to heterosexual couples, homosexual couples are not protected under these laws. I have also shown in this round that not only is the United States not obligated to make gay marriage legal, it is unable to do so based on the agreed upon definitions. Question: If gay marriage is a civil right, then is polygamy a civil right? Sources: [1]- http://www.gpo.gov... [2]- http://www.archives.gov...
Gay marriage should be legal in the United States

I will preface this by saying that I agree with the resolution, but am looking forward to the challenge this resolution will provide. I would like to clarify and add a couple of definitions:Legal in the United States- Federal law, the supreme law of the land [1]. Should- used to express obligation or duty [2]. Marriage- The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other [3]. My opponent has the BoP to show why the United States is obligated to make gay marriage legal. Sources:[1]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]- . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3]- . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Let the debating begin!
Gay marriage should be legal in the United States

(FYI, I already posted a debate like this, but someone accepted as Pro when they had actually misread the resolution. So, I'm posting the debate again, but if you see another debate around that is exactly like this, ignore it, it's dead and waiting to be deleted by a mod.) As Pro, I will affirm the resolution, attesting that gay marriage should be legal in the United States. As Con, you will argue against the resolution, attesting that gay marriage should not be legal in the United States. Definitions: Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage): a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. [1] Legal: Permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal. [2] Rules: Round One shall be for acceptance, not beginning one's argument. Sources: [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage [2] dictionary.reference.com/browse/legal
Gay marriage should be legal in the United States

I apologize for having to make these arguments that my opponent will not have a chance to respond to. Unfortunately, because of the change in arguments on the last round on his part, I am forced to do this. If, like Pro has said, gay marriage is currently legal as part of United States federal law, then I have the BoP to prove why the law should be changed so that gay marriage is not legal. If, however, I can prove that legal gay marriage is not currently part of federal law, then Pro would have the BoP to prove why the law should be changed. In this round I will show how gay marriage is not legal under federal law. The other option my opponent has argued for in the previous round is that the Constitution should be changed to make sure that gay marriage is legal if I can prove that it is not already. Because he bears the BoP in this case, I contend that he has not provided good enough reason to take this power from the states. So at this point all I must do in order to win this debate is to prove that gay marriage is not currently legal. Legal in the United States was accepted at the beginning of the debate as federal law. The definition of federal law which was included in that definition is: " the supreme law of the land. "If legal gay marriage was the supreme law of the land in the United States, then all states would be required to allow gay marriage. Obviously states do not have to make gay marriage legal according to the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment does not make marriage legal. Instead, it defers this power to the states. So it is legal for the states to make gay marriage legal. It is also legal for the states to make gay marriage illegal. So gay marriage is not legal in the United States which would mean that it was the supreme law of the land. What is legal is for states to decide. So although it is permitted by law, the agreed upon definition of legal, it is not federal law, the more recent agreed upon definition of legal in the United States. Conclusion: Same sex marriage is not currently legal in the United States under federal law. Same sex marriage is only a civil right in some jurisdictions in the United States. My opponent has not provided a substantial reason why the states should not be allowed to maintain the power to decide for themselves. Therefore, I have fulfilled my BoP by showing that my opponent did not fulfill his.
The Big Bang may have occured

Rebuttals:"Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from. This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum." People do so differently, but I will assume that this is one of the mainpoints.Yes, indeed. According to the laws of physics (Conservation of angular momentum[1], in particular), especially in an environment without friction, when a piece comes off a spinning object, that piece must spin in the same direction.And you assume that the spinning dot span in this direction: However, some do not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards. However, that is not what happened.Asteroids came flying out after the cataclysmic explosion due to the extreme density. The asteroids span in the same direction.Asteroids go through a process where they fuse, forming stars, etc.However, when so happens, they no longer spin, thus not violating the laws of conservation of angular momentum. If any piece spins, it must come off the formation."Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets."The planets, stars, etc. did not come out right after the cataclysmic explosion. They were formed.The Earth, for instance, is compelled to orbit the Sun in the same distance because the Sun's gravitational pull is pulling it towards its center. However, the Earth's rotation compensates. It's rotation pulls it outward.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Big Bang may have occured

Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from. This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum. This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from. So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction. However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.
The Big Bang may have occured

Rebuttals:"Newton's second law is not true because an airplane is faster than a car, while an airplane has more inertia and mass!"According to Newton's second law of physics[1], the net force has to be in proportion to, and in the same direction as, the object acted upon.In other words, the net force a car is acted upon is weaker than the net force an airplane is acted upon.Also, why did you change the subject?Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion
Humanity is the main cause of global warming.

Yes, I agree with Pro's sources in Round 5 that list all of the ways in which human activity plays a role in affecting global climate. Unfortunately, Pro failed to acknowledge the issue of "Attribution of Recent Climate Change" which I brought up in Round 4. Without doing so, it is impossible to conclude that ". .. Humanity is the Main Cause of Global Warming" as Pro has done. To further bolster my argument, I will reference the 376 page scholarly book (published in 2015) "Climate Change, Multidecadal and Beyond" . https://books.google.ca... which flatly states outright in the introduction "Many questions concerning the nature and causes of climate variability on the multidecadal time scale are still unresolved. ". This book also references a Technical Summary of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report which acknowledges "Difficulties remain in attributing temperature changes at smaller than continental scales and over time scales less than 50 years. " (Solomon et al. , 2007). While generalist websites for the public (such as the ones referenced by pro) may ignore the issue of attribution, clearly scholars and climate scientists cannot and do not. The book I referenced demonstrates that scientists are working very hard on the attribution issue, and may resolve it in the near future thanks to ever improving technology, statistics and modeling. However, being that the world's top scientists have not resolved the issue of climate change attribution, it is far too premature for "pro" declare a victory or a conclusion that humanity is the "main" cause of climate change (based on the information contained in generalist websites), especially in the context of a Multidecadal view. I was very much hoping that Pro would address the issue of 'Attribution of Recent Climate Change' which I introduced in Round 4.
Humanity is the main cause of global warming.

I never said that Mankind is the sole cause of global warming. I'm saying they are the main cause of global warming. According to the chart provided by Con in the previous argument, we are supposed going through a clod period. Then how come that 14 of the 15 hottest years are in the 21st century? This is shown in Wiki page of Global Warming. Therefore I respectfully say that the site might be wrong. Its true , there have been cold periods every year. But I think those are called winters. Another reason. Global Warming is primarily caused by emission of GHGs, or Greenhouse gases. The primary sources of GHGs are factories and automobiles . Which are human sources. The only major contributor from the natural side are trees which only emit CO2 during the night. Whereas human sources include, CO, CO2, nitrous oxide, methane and other synthetic chemicals emitted is vapour form by humans. And with the tree population declining, and not many volcanoes in the past 10 years, the GHG emission by nature are not that significant as mankind. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... And contrary to common perception there has not been any cool period, the average surface temperature of the planet has been constantly increasing. The concentration of CO2 has been up about 20% from 650,000 years ago. Con has failed to rebut the argument of radioactive forcing which was in one of my sources. Just because its contribution cannot be quantified, doesn't mean it is not the major contributor. http://www3.epa.gov... In the above site, research has indicated that natural causes do not explain the recent climate changes . ( Ever since the Industrial Revolution). The site also gives the natural causes of climate change. 1)Variations in the sun's energy reaching Earth 2)Changes in the reflectivity of Earth"s atmosphere and surface 3)Changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by Earth"s atmosphere 1)Its true that there have been changes in the Sun's energy reaching the Earth but none big enough to cause such a change in surface temperature ALONE. 2) The constant GHG emissions have damaged our ozone layer and are causing UV rays to enter the atmosphere which is also increase the temperature of the planet. Again . A human source. 3) The changes in the GreenHouse effect, is that we humans have been constantly increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere in our quest for development and comfort. A human source. 4) There have been no volcanic eruptions, atleast not big enough for the atmosphere to change and for the aerosol count to become so high. Therefore one can conclude that a human source is now behind almost every natural cause that MAY have caused this spike in temperature. Therefore Humanity is the Main Cause of Global Warming.
Humanity is the main cause of global warming.

Firstly. I have not quantified anything in the heading of the debate. I've said 'main cause'. Not 'more than fifty percent' or somethinglike that. Main means a major portion. Since when did 'substantially' get used for a small portion? And it is also not my possible (to my knowledge) to quantify the impact of natural causes on climate change as it is unpredictable and can change any time. Con has also left out my point that human activities can alter the natural conditions of the earth, therefore any change in temperature due to natural causes could have a human factor behind it. As explained in the following. http://co2now.org... Secondly, I never said natural causes play an insignificant role. I said they play an important role but not as important as human causes. In con's reference chart, the temperature has been constantly oscillating between hot and cold, but if you check recent years there have been almost two constant hot periods and the cold period is almost invisible ( in the graph I mean) meaning it is very short. And then in the graph itself it clear that the hot periods have been on the rise since the Age of Induatrialization. And after 2015, the cold period is based on assumptions and predictions, and as I have already made clear that nature cannot always be predicted. Thirdly Global Warming is a reality. Just because there have hotter periods before, doesn't mean it is not happening. The following site also explains that the global warming hiatus in recent times is not true. And that climate only causes short term changes in the climate of the earth, but human activity causes long term changes. http://www.bbc.com... Fourthly scientists will not quanitfy and agree that mankind is responsible for global warming, as it is their community that are primary responsible (in humans). But I will not defame them as some ARE trying their best to prove it. Fifthly , again I refer to the chart provided by Con, the hot periods have gradually developed over a period of time, but in recent years its almost at a right angle. Which means there have been sharp and quick increase in the heat all over the globe.