BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Personal God Does Not Exist

Pro's assertion for my loss of conduct point.In a philosophical argument, when someone asserts a claim, as my opponent has done, the fallacy of ingorance occurs if the burden of proof is shifted to the challenger. My opponent set me up so that I would be in error during Round 2. I could not have argued my own position, because I am the challenger. My opponent deserves the loss of a conduct point, because he has repeated his accusation at me, while I've already explained why he is in error.MiraclesMy opponent argues that I made an appeal to authority. No. This is testimony- you cannot use fallacies when dealing with testimony. Testimony is dealt with the reliability of the witness. Doctors are a reliable witness, because they are trained in the medical field. As already stated, doctors are superior to laymen in the intelligence with human biology- they would understand when a miracle is taking place. If miracles happen, that is a direct cause from God. Therefore, a personal God exists.Christ's ResurrectionMy opponent never refuted Christ's resurrection. If Christ was resurrected, God have to have raised Him. If Christ made claims about a personal God, and then predicted that God would raise Him, and then the event happened as He said, we can trust His testimony that God is personal.1.The Personal God came into existence long after human beings came into existence.This point has been tossed out due to fallacy.2.The Personal God has never asserted its' own existence.I conceded this point in Round 2. It is also irrelevant to whether a personal God exists or not.3.The Personal God is an inanimate creature and not personal.The argument for Christ and miracles refute this.4.Human beings are not rational creatures but rationalizing creatures.This is irrelevant to the resolution.5.Human beings fail to communicate with each other effectively.Irrelevant to the resolution.6.The Personal God does not intervene or no longer intervenes.Refuted with the miracles argument.7.If a god or multiple gods exist they are not personal. Refuted with the Christ and miracles arguments.ConclusionA personal God exists. The strongest argument was the resurrection of Jesus.Thank you for the debate, Pro.
The Personal God Does Not Exist

Pro: Note:My opponent has disregarded the debate structure even though he accepted this debate. I am referring to how in Round 2 he offered rebuttals rwhen he supposed to be presenting only an opening argument. This should result in the loss of his conduct points.I want to point out that, in Round 1, Pro stated "The burden of proof is on my side to show that the personal god does not exist.As the burden of proof is on my opponent, all that is necessary for me in this debate is to refute every argument that he presents. If the burden of proof was shared, then we would open with our own arguments. As Pro stated that he alone wanted the BoP, then he cannot argue that I should lose conduct points for opening with refutations. My opening arguments would be refutations when the BoP is on him. Please acknowledge this when voting. Exodus Event/ MonotheismIt would not matter when the Exodus event occured. The Jews practices monotheism long before Moses, so this argument is irrelevant. There is evidence that Monotheism has been practices since the beginning of time. The Bible records the history. Now, my opponent and I can argue the historical accuracy of the Bible if he would like, but we have the genealogical records in the Bible. He can only cast down on this written record, not disrpove it.MiraclesMy opponent attempts to reduce miracles to ignorant people that only use miracles because of tawdry behavior. He completely missed my argument.Doctors are professionals in the medical field. They understand human biology. They understand science. They do not claim miracles because of ignorance on medical matters. They testify that miracles exist because they see things happen that go against the natural methods of human biology. This is not an argument from ignorance- it's an argument against contradiction, that is, because it is going against nature, it must be supernatural. When there are only two options, and we cut out one option, then the other must be true. If my opponent wants to refute this, he must supply another option (besides ignorance, as I have already refuted that claim).Jesus Proves a personal GodMy opponent argues that even if Jesus was resurrected, this does not prove that God is personal. My opponent has never defined what he means by personal. I don't want to turn this into a semantics debate, though. So i'll offer this: The Scriptures paint the God of Christianity as a God who interacts with humanity through means of angels, dreams, miracles, and prophets. This is the God of Christianity, and the personal God is one who interacts and cares about each person. My opponent is using semantics to refute his personal description of the Christian God. If Christ was resurrected, then His words ring true, and the personal God Yahweh does exist. My opponent offered no rebuttals towards the argument for Christ's resurrection.
The cell phone verification system on this site is useless

I will make my argument brief. =Resolution= The resolution says that the cell phone verication is USELESS. Pro's argument suggest that the cell phone verication OUGHT TO BE ABOLISHED FROM DDO. These two are different resolutions. For example, one may say that the cell phone verification is useless but should not be abolished from DDO, or they may say the cell phone verification should be abolished from DDO despite having a few or many important uses. Thus my opponent is will fully off-topic. Therefore, I will debate from two different angles; the one that the resolution is asking for, and the one that my opponent is debating from. =Contentions= C1) Is the cell phone verification really "useless"? The cell phone verification is not useless, because it still has one use: to enable voting privileges. Useless is defined as: 1. of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him. [1] 2. without useful qualities; of no practical good: a useless person; a useless gadget. [1] Here we see that the cell phone verification has a use, which is to enable voting privileges. Thus, c. p. verification is not "of no use". C2) Cell phone verification = Identity verification Some bots can successfully create accounts on DDO - and any site in general. Fortunately, bots do not use cell phones. Therefore, there must be a cell phone verification to stop bots from claiming voting privileges. It is also possible that this will help cyber bullies or cybercriminals from gaining voting privileges. Here is why: 1. ) If cyberbullies are to be banned, and they have multiple accounts and phones, the mods will be able to track down which IP address or cell phone line the phone number came from, therefore enabling them to delete both accounts. 2. ) Well known cybercriminals will have to show their identity through cell phone verification. This will help identify them and convict them (possibly). =Rebuttals= My opponent argues that emailing support for voting privileges should also be abolished from DDO as it would be less work for the mods. However, this is also off-topic. Maybe even more so. Also, if this were to be abolished from DDO, the mods would fail to recognize and convict some cyber bullies and criminals via email. =Conclusion= My opponent has failed to fulfill his/her BoP, and I have refuted their arguments. The resolution is negated. (1) . http://dictionary.reference.com...
The cell phone verification system on this site is useless

While I understand the need to ensure that voting spam does not occur, requiring a verification via cell phone text is ridiculous. Some people do not have cell phones, or cell phones with texting capabilities, or simply do not wish to give out their phone number online. Rather than requiring cell phone verification in order to vote, it should be that once you've verified your account via e-mail and completed three debates, you automatically gain the right to vote on debates, instead of having to e-mail support in order to be verified. This would lessen the amount of work support has to do as well.
What is the true faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness.

Widest universe = All matter + time + space + laws of nature 1) Saying that Jehovah created widest universe is contradiction in itself. "created" implies it is in the past (in the time). Time can not be measured(perceived) without matter moving trough the space. Therefore, it is only logical to assume either: - At the first moment of time matter was already moving trough space. - There wasn't first moment of time, matter was always circulating trough the space. In either case, matter is not created. It always was. 2) You believe Jesus is Jehovah's son. But Jews at the time of Jesus didn't. They considered Jesus to be human prophet. Statement that Jesus is Jehovah's son was developed by Christian church (which was founded on year 313.) 3) There is no valid criteria for who goes to heaven on earth. 4) Reviving all humans that died is not beneficial for the universe. Idea of afterlife is developed by humans who disliked idea that they will die someday. 5) If there will be no evil, we will all be beautiful, we will be more intelligent, and we will not have memories of very bad things, what makes us in the heaven on earth - us? If my opponent answers these, I will point out more flaws of Jehovah witness' teaching. Except answering, I will invite my opponent to point out flaws of atheism, if any.
What is the true faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness.

1) As you already know, I am a Jehovah's Witness. 2) I was born in a Jehovah's Witness family. My dad, on the other hand, was born in an atheist place in Cuba. He didn't deny a God, but he didn't know anything about him or if he cared about us. 3) My dad found a Bible on his university bed, read it, and shortly after was visited by Jehovah's Witnesses. We both came to the same conclusion after studying it. There is no other book as extraordinary as the Bible, and Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth found in the Bible. Con claims "religions are made up solely by humans, without good arguments to support them." What exactly makes atheism "more genuine, based on facts and able to stand to scrutiny"? How are you familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses? And what exactly are their flaws? I thank my adversary for his response, and look forward to his answers.
What is the true faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness.

I am a Jehovah's Witness, and very satisfied with my faith. I believe the true faith should be genuine, based on facts, and able to stand to scrutiny. I'd gladly have a pleasant and non offensive debate about what is the truth with anyone of any other faith. For the introduction I expect to see the answer to the following questions: 1) What is your faith? 2) Has that always been your faith? 3) Why do you believe it to be the truth?
What is the true faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness.

Con has passed the round, clearly not because I have not answered his questions or rebut his arguments well, but because he realized there are no real flaws with the Jehovah's Witness faith. I have defended it, and proven it to be genuine, based on facts, and able to stand to scrutiny. Con, on the other hand, does not give any evidence for his outrageous claim of "unicorns" (that there is no God).
What is the true faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness.

Q1) I don't know what "complex time and space continuum" is, I don't understand what it means to be limited by time and space, and I would an explanation. Q2) How did my opponent came up with statement "matter had a beginning"? As far as I know Big bang is a theory, and theories do not have a beginning. Q3) Except "physical" universe, what other kinds of universe are there? Sources for my statement about Jesus not originally being the son of God: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_view_of_Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I will use phrase "heaven on earth", I believe it is the same thing as "earthly paradise". Q4) No one does "will of my father" all the time, and no one never does "will of my father". How much should one do "will of my father" in order to enter heaven on earth? R1) Let me rephrase that one. I am saying that nothing except humans will have benefit from reviving dead humans. Reviving itself is not harmful, but in order for humans to be immortal, many laws of nature have to be changed. Everything we know disintegrates over time, even the stars. R2) Ability to learn can not be perfect, it can always better, unless we know everything. Learning speed is included in intelligence, so you contradicted yourself, by saying we will not be more intelligent but will learn faster. R3) I never claimed that unicorns exist, or anything like that. R4) Rules that apply to what is in universe(house) are not applied to universe as well. For simplified example, if there is a water resistant box, and inside of it are: pen, letter and coin; Rule "It must be redrawn form the box in order to become surrounded by water" applies to pen, letter and coin, but does not apply to the box itself. R5) Negative atheism is not made up by humans, it is default position they are in when they are born. R6) I do not claim that some form of deity doesn't exist, I claim that the way Jehovah is described in the bible doesn't make sense. 6) Jesus supposedly turned water into the wine and walked on water. If he could really do such miracles, people would actually believe in legitimacy of his claims, and would not execute him. 7) Since my opponent claimed that Jehovah's will is always fulfilled, that means Jehovah did not wish for murder, rape, hunger and diseases to stop (yet).
Resolved: Guns should be Banned from civilians

My counter rebutalls.Gun CultureWhat do you mean it's irrelvant? Why should guns be banned with a whole lot of American use guns for their daily lives? Pro forgets that he never specified for what reason gun's should be banned for. Pro can't simply dismiss my arguments, because it doesn't have ansything to do with saving lives.Little Effect in Certain StatesSo, Pro says that I admit a gun ban would't have a strong effect on Vermont, but he doesn't adress the Pro's of owning guns. I said Vermont uses their gun's for purposes such has hunting, so when we decide, what is more important? Preventing 3 murders committed by guns, or the nessisities of guns used by the citizens. This also doesn't take into factor that the defensive gun use may play a factor into the crime rate. Like I said before, the Gun culture and gun uses depend on this the states. Why should a state with such a low crime rate, have it's guns taken away, when they use them for legitimate purposes?Guns are used for self-defensePro barely refutes my points on defensive gun uses. He concedes the notion that guns are used for 200k to 2 million times per year for defensive purposes, and that is clearly much higher than the homicide rate. (Note, I'm only mentioning homicide, because that is what Pro is arguing for) Pro's main arguments are about how the statement "Gun's don't kill people, children do" I must say, I never heard of such statement. I have always heard of "Gun's don't kill people, people do". So, let's cover Pro's first example. A 12 year old brother kills his 11 sister. It clearly says that the brother shot his sister, so it's in conflict of what Pro is trying to say.Pro continues to list examples, but the logic still pertains. It's very clear the person A shot person B, not the gun magically was possesed and killed Person B. Regardless, this rebutall is largely irrelevant to my argument, because it doesn't adresss the defensive gun uses. Pro then commits another Appeal to Emotion Fallacy by saying "Would you kill children just so people could defend themselves"? This logic makes 0 sense to me, as I don't get at all why I would murder children to protect the right to bear arms.Illegal GunsPro does slightly concede the notion that the 93% of guns used in violent crime is illegal, but says that banning guns would make it harder to obtain. Yes, in theory that makes a lot of sense, but keep in mind, that there are millions of guns circulating in the market right now, and banning gun's wouldn't nessarily reduce the crime. Note the Con's of this would be that by banning guns, this would leave law abidding citizens defenseless. So, while the ban of guns would eventually lower the crime, it wouldn't happen right away, and the crime rate will rise, from the lack of defensive gun uses.
Resolved: Guns should be Banned from civilians

By DDO customs people would argue first, and it the next round would for rebutalls. I never specified such rule in my resolution, so that is fine on my opponents behalf, but Pro's rebutalls are complete, so he cannot provide extra rebutalls in the coming rounds. Only counter-rebutalls and conclusions will be allowed. This is keep the debate fair. So, for the next round, Con will have no choice to pass it, because he already provided the rebutalls. Note, this isn't a forfeit pass, so voters cannot take of points for this.
Resolved: Guns should be Banned from civilians

C1: Gun culture The reason why I believe gun bans would not be that effective is because there is already a prevelant gun culture currently existing in America. We Americans love guns. Guns are part of our culture. Banning guns nationwide would severely effect those who depend on guns for their daily activities. For example, the state of New York. There are appoximately 15.1 hunters per square mile. So, banning guns would have a major impact on their way of life. (2)C2: Little effect in certain statesLet me take the state of Vermont for example. It's a state that has much less restrictions on guns [3], and its homicide rate in 2013, was 1.3 per 100,000 [1]. So, here is evidence that banning guns would not make a huge difference. Vermont is basically a state with 0 gun control, and it's homicide rate its one of the safest in the country. What exactly would be the point of gun bans? People in Vermont depend on guns for hunting etc.., and it is very clear that most of their gun owners are responsible law abidding citizens. So, essentially, a gun ban would prevent these people from using guns' for their daily activities, even though their homicide rate is one of the lowest in the country.C3: Guns are used for self-defenseGuns are used by Americans for self-defense annually. Studies found that approximately 200,000 to 2million defensive gun uses occur each year[4] [5] . , which show that guns save lives and protect against criminals. Let me compare this to the annual homicide rate.(4) You can see in 2013, the # of murders that occured were about 14,827. So the amount of times guns have been used for defensive purposes is nearly 100 times more than the total homicides that occured. Keep in mind, that not all of those murder's were commited by guns. Only 60%, or 8.855 murders. Well, you might think, "well gun bans would atleast prevent 8,885 murders." I'll show in my next contention why that is not the case.C4: Illegal guns/ Pro's of CCWSo the United States has a big issue dealing with Illegal guns. There are approximately, 250 to 280 million guns in circulation in the U.S. In other words, 93% of gun crime is actually commited by illegal guns. (5) This number is so insanely high, it almost wouldn't make any significant difference, if all law abiding citizens were forced to give their guns away. Now I will explain how CCW actually has benefited more. Ever since CCW states have enacted CCW's to their citizens, states have witnessed an 8.5% drop in murders, 5% in rapes, 7% in aggrevated assaults and 3% in robberies. So, in some states, CCW does serve as a detterent to crime. (7)Sources:1:https://en.wikipedia.org...2:https://www.qdma.com...4:http://www.guncite.com...5: http://www.bjs.gov...6:http://davekopel.org...7: http://www.wsj.com...
Military force is an appropriate weapon for the US to use against enemies that may develop nukes

Until then, let me begin with why I think that I win this round. 1. Con never proved why military force itself was not appropriate. -All that Con has proven is that diplomacy is better, but what you have to see is that does not disprove military force as being appropriate. It's like proving that a pen is better than a pencil. Personally I prefer the pen, but every once in a while I find myself using the pencil. It's the same situation here, the United States might someday find itself in a situation where diplomacy does not work, then what? It's only other option would then be to use military force which therefore makes it appropriate. 2. My case (Pro) was never argued with how it is not appropriate, only with why nukes may not be a bad thing. -Okay, nukes may not be that bad and may hardly ever be used, but that doesn't mean that we will never find ourself in a situation that we might need to use some sort of force to stop nuclear proliferation (the spread of nukes). Therefore, we may need to stop it, and military force, is an option that will be looked at because it is appropriate. -In the end- You have to see that military force is appropriate. Before voting, I challenge you to point somewhere in this debate where my opponent has ever disproved the appropriateness. Since he has only offered a better option (diplomacy which is like the pen) and has not said anything about the option we are debating (military force which is like the pencil), you have to see that sometimes, it is appropriate to use the pencil (like situations where you don't have to pen or with math problems) and vote Pro. Thank You and see you later Mr. La Croix.
Military force is an appropriate weapon for the US to use against enemies that may develop nukes

Alright, now before I begin, I want to offer the following definition: Diplomacy: Tact and skill in dealing with people. Now, as I mentioned in my first speech, diplomacy is the appropriate way of dealing with matters. Then, in my second speech, I mentioned the Nuclear Peace Theory. Sometimes doing nothing is the best way of dealing with people, or the best form of diplomacy. Thus, my argument must stand that diplomacy is more rational and also more appropriate when dealing with international issues, such as the one we are debating. Therefore, Mr. Cumbee, I have proven the resolution to be false as I, essentially the NEG, (this is really sounding like an actual LD round)must prove it to be false. And since you have not refuted any of my actual arguments, you therefore must agree that diplomacy works. Thus, my only burden would be to prove that military force is not appropriate. Since both sides should know that appropriate means a suitable action, that should be taken into consideration in this round. Since the resolution never states that the enemies actually have the intention to use them upon us, preemptive action, by using military force, would not be a suitable action, and thus not appropriate. The appropriate move would be to take a diplomatic stance to this and allow the Nuclear Proliferation Theory to create and stability in this world. Ultimately Mr. Cumbee, I am not in the wrong debate and since you wasted your last speech saying so, I wish you good luck now trying to prove your side. :-)
Military force is an appropriate weapon for the US to use against enemies that may develop nukes

I am sorry to make this argument so blatantly, but my opponent has NEVER proven the resolution true. All the resolution (or the definition of the debate) asks us is if military force is APPROPRIATE if we needed to use it. All my opponent has proven on ALL of his arguments is that it is unlikely that nuclear war will happen, but that is not the debate. I have proven that sometimes proliferation is bad and that military force is then appropriate to get rid of it. Pull through my case and look to see if any of his arguments are resolution specific because I do not believe they are. Sorry Mr. La Croix, but you are in the wrong debate. I hope in your next speech, you will do AT LEAST one of two things... either point out how you are proving it is appropriate, or list a few new reasons. Until then, good luck. Thank You