BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If god is omnipotent and omibenevolent and all knowing than why couldn't he make a better reality

Thank you, you also made many fair points as well. But still I disagree. The Garden of Eden it self wasn't perfect, it was just an "utopia". Because Adam and eve, couldn't imagine to fly, there weren't any infinite or amazing phenomena's, only a simple utopia. And since Adam and eve, weren't really old and had not many experience. It was pretty unsmart for a deity like god, to forbidd them to eat the apple. Why and how? Simple, imagine that you tell a child to not touch a bottom, the child is more likely to press the bottom after all. Next if we give a PART of the infinity to some people, then how could they disuse it ,if the god is Omnipotent? Plus eliminating evil is possible and you can have emotions as well. Jesus had no evil and he still possessed emotions. PRO: The God, still could make a different reality after all. And if someone posseses infinite power and knowledge. Then its not hard to make a combination of a paradise and punishment. Free will, still can exist if an emotion like evil disappears. Actually there could be emotions we cant imagine. And because we cant imagine them, we don't posses the Free will? And agree no one would like to be punished. So why are we still punished after all, if god loves us. With infinite imagination, knowledge and power, god still could make literally infinite better realities. But I was talking if he would exist, because he probably doesn't. We can post some comments after the debate for extras.
If god is omnipotent and omibenevolent and all knowing than why couldn't he make a better reality

So lets be quick. If god truely exists, than he could make a way better or worse reality. There are some Christian apologists that say that it was ment for us to be in our "reality". Well, I disagree. Because if god is all knowing, all loving and all powefull for the species Homo Sapiens, then why hasn't he fought about a different reality and a different way of rouling. His mistakes are very visible, like when he flooded the world, he killed all evil and only the "good" stayed like Noah and his animals. But if we are honest. Theoretically he could find a other way. Why because we are his "creation" and he loves us, his all powerful and all knowing, but if he truley does respects us and owns unlimited power and all possible knowledge, why couldn't he come up with an better idea? Seriously, there are other ways how to fix a planet filled with evil. Why couldn't he just eliminate all evil, just by transforming it into good? And actually there are many,many other ideas. According to the bible, we are stuck on this crazy suffering planet, only because of an technical mistake of an very young girl/women (I mean Eve). But seriously is this the way to punish all Homo Sapiens and all other species, only because of an interest in the "amazing forbidden apple"? In some cases, I wonder why the snake didn't take it and brought it to Eve. But lets get back to the topic: - if god trulley loves and respects us and has unlimited power and knowledge. Why didn't he create an interesting reality where we would live great, being punished at the same time and how hard is it to give some of the unlimited energy to a specimen? Give a few parts of an infinity to a few specimens, is that hard? If god is all knowing than he would be able to make any possible idea to work, how? Simple he has the knowledge and the power (even unlimited). And he loves us after all. There are amazingly many ways how God and his "staff",could create an idea and make it working. Just imagine Watch that video:
Guitar video games are not as useful as real guitars.

http://www.wisegeek.com... "This is one of the reasons that with many activities that involve the body's muscles, like playing an instrument, learning appropriate technique is always stressed. You want your muscle memory to reflect the correct way to do things, not the incorrect way. Your muscle memory can actually play against you if you've constantly been practicing something the wrong way. Music teachers often make this contention. It's a lot harder to teach someone who's been playing an instrument for a few years because the first step is breaking them of all the bad habits they've acquired, which are now part of the muscle memory. Similarly, if you learn to bat, throw, kick or pitch wrong, your muscle memory has to be overcome, and new neural pathways formed to be a better athlete." As you can see, most music teachers, who we can consider the experts on learning an instrument, would cantend that learning improper fingering will hinder progress later on. Having no seperation for strings, and a very small number of buttons to represent frets, the controller can not possibly teach correct fingering, and can therefore only develop an improper playing habit. As for potential earnings. There is far more potential to earn money playing a guitar than a video game. Your argument contends that the most even an elite level video gamer can make is in the thousands. They are also limited solely to tournament play to earn money. Now elite level guitarists, if commercially successful, can make millions. That is better than thousands. And if not commercially successful, there are other avenue's. A street busker in a large city can make hundreds of dollars per day. That adds up very quickly when they can play almost daily in many climates. There is also the avenue of music instruction. This could be at a privately owned studio, or even a college level proffessorship. Yet another avenue is that of a session guitarist at a studio. This is just the tip of the icebergh, but should give a small indication of the variety of options available. As for replacing the guitar, that is not likely. The electric guitar did not replace the acoustic guitar, nor did the keyboard replace the piano. Keyboards and synthesizer use reached it's high point in the eighties, remained popular in the early nineties, and has declined since then. The wide variety of digital effects and processing technology today is only increasing the guitars potential and versatility. To conclude: While there may be a potential for limited productivity of the guitar video games in a tournament setting, it is but a fraction of the returns recieved on dedication to the actual instrument.
Guitar video games are not as useful as real guitars.

"For comparing fast fingers, that can be done with a real guitar too. Me and my friends race on neo-classical songs all the time." Yes but in this sence do you not have to practice in speed as well. In Earnie boles guitar instructional book, are there not pages consisting of techinicues to improve speed over all. As far as proiductivity it also goes as far as to prove controllers fight obeasity and with money you see that there are numerous gaming leauges awarding tens of thousands of dollars to winners of individual and team events. Even bands inspired to play strictly with the guitar controllers. In turn could the guitar even go as far as becoming obselete?
Guitar video games are not as useful as real guitars.

For comparing fast fingers, that can be done with a real guitar too. Me and my friends race on neo-classical songs all the time. You could say that the game provides an objective analysis of speed in the points system, but this can also be done with a metronome to track beats per minute, as well as the easily observable, who finishes first? As the original question relates to productivity, I would also point out that an actual instrument has a more likely potential to make a someone money than a video game.
Guitar video games are not as useful as real guitars.

I am not a policy debater and there is not much to debate here. But thank you for authorship. First there is not documented proof that those who begin on a guitar, or on a controller have more or less difficulty than the latter. The fact that finger speed itself and repetitive movement trains the fingers to do something so that these muscles can adjust to the strain. But none the less there is still the argument that hey its not a real guitar, well what about the new technology being created to input a real guitar into the system. Regardless if you give a child guitar hero, or a auctul guitar, which is he more likely to practice with? Which can he stand and play with his friends for hours on end comparing who has faster fingering. This is a essential skill put forth to learning the guitar itself. If anything a controller guitar inspires and creates more guitarist. http://gizmodo.com...
The all seeing eye

So I see your perspective. You want to ban Islam because its essentially destructive and evil. But I'm confused about the "being forced" part. Muslims are not being forced to adhere to the Islamic doctrine. Most of them grew up with this practice and even support it to great means. Though, I do agree that Islam is a bad form of worship. Islamic fundamentalists, extremists, and citizens alike admit that Islam permits the use of violence to achieve their goals and most even condone it. However, I wouldn't agree that followers of Islam are being forced. I'd say that they are misguided or maybe even "brainwashed". It's like communism. Many communist regimes use propaganda and such to convince their subjects to follow them and they implement their tactics in every part of their life from a very young age. These people believe and follow these regimes even though its truly bad and terrible to do so. You said that Islam needs to banned so that people can leave in a safe manner. But how much more danger are they in from all those other people who don't follow Islam? Islamic extremists have labeled every non-Muslim "infidel" and would treat them with the utmost hostility. Is there a different and even more horrible way they punish people for no longer following Islam?
The all seeing eye

I realized i had been looking at that pic for to long :P im not saying we should ban money.. and islam should be banned due to the nature of islam, muslims being forced and all.. so they can deconvert, and safely as that is necessary for them to truly "unsubmit" or not be submitted well, for one food costs money, that is like putting a price on air. but this is not really about solutions just about what the all seeing eye is
The Idea of a Natural Monopoly is a Fallacy

Natural monopolies, that is, where all or most sales are undertaken by a single firm in the market without government intervention, cannot exist. Only government can create harmful monopolies through government intervention by decreasing competition on the market. Harmful monopolies cannot occur on the free market. Natural monopoly A monopoly describes a situation where all (or most) sales in a market are undertaken by a single firm. Fallacy an error in reasoning. Hope someone accepts. :)
The Idea of a Natural Monopoly is a Fallacy

I will first start with the definition of a Monopsony before going into rebuttals. Monopsony: "In economics, a monopsony (from Ancient Greek μόνος (mónos) "single" + ὀψωνία (opsōnía) "purchase") is a market form in which only one buyer faces many sellers. It is an example of imperfect competition, similar to a monopoly, in which only one seller faces many buyers. As the only purchaser of a good or service, the monopsonist may dictate terms to its suppliers in the same manner that a monopolist controls the market for its buyers." <1> A Natural Monopoly has never Occured Standard Oil: My opponent failed to address how Standard of Oil was not a monopoly. I showed successfully that in Round 2 how it met the definition of one and Pro has failed to argue against this. Point to Con Microsoft: I showed in Round 3 how the legal system deemed that Microsoft had a monopoly. My opponent is yet to address this. Point to Con My opponent then discusses general costs of IBM computers, reducing costs of laptops in the last 3 years and makes sweeping statements about technological advances and cost reduction. Not only does this have no relevance to the Microsoft Monopoly (they had a software monopoly) but he also provides information for IBM which has no relevance. Price Reduction: Once a company has successfully driven competition out he can raise prices because.....there is no more competition for the customers to go to. I will try to illustrate with an example to make it clear. Example: Imagine you have 5 car making companies all making sedans (healthy competition). One car maker (with sufficient reserves to cover losses due to this pricing strategy) suddenly halves the price of its cars. All customers therefore buy from this car maker and the 4 others eventually go out of business due to lack of sales. So now you have one car maker (monopoly) and he suddenly quadruples the price of cars. The consumer is forced to pay this as there is no more competition. It would take a new competitor a long time and a lot of money to build factories, hire a workforce, design a car and finally produce and sell it. This costs of entering the market are a typical example of a "barrier to entry" which as I explained in round 2 causes monopolies. Monopsony or Monopoly: My opponent claimed my examples of "technologies/resource control" are not examples of monopolies. They and the Novak Djokovic are clearly not! They are sellers with numerous buyers not numerous sellers with one buyer. Point to con. Unethical Business Practices: I make no mistake about the free market and neither should my opponent. While the mafia are illegal is does not stop them doing what they do. Over to my opponent for final round. <1> http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Idea of a Natural Monopoly is a Fallacy

My opponent's contentions do not quite make much of an argument: a) Technology/b) Resources ControlMy opponent lists two contentions which are basically the same idea, a monopsony, which is not classified as a natural monopoly, for there was never any real competition to begin with. These do not apply. And Contention 2: Unethical Business Practices in the Free MarketMy opponent makes a mistake in making in assumption that in a free market, threatening other businesses and or murdering other business owners would be legal. This would never be legal in any society. The free market is not necessarily lawless, just unregulated. Murder will always be illegal no matter what. Microsoft did nothing but raise prices: I have scoured high and low for any information online to show that Microsoft steadily reduced prices. I ask my opponent to support this statement.The cost of an IBM computer has decreased tremendously. An IBM computer would cost around $3000 dollars back in 1980's. Today, you can buy a decent IBM from about $300 and up. Competition is a major factor in why prices have gone down, otherwise, IBM computers should still be around $3000 dollars if we were to buy into this natural monopoly theory. The price of computers have been decreasing around 11% to 12% for the past three years. Just like Standard Oil, Microsoft has found more convenient ways of creating their product. In Microsoft's case, it's making technology smaller and smaller, so that more technology can be put into one item. Microsoft played a large role in the decreasing price of computer technology. Once they dominate the market they then increase the price as there is no longer any competition for buyers to go to. Falling prices from Standard Oil is therefore actually support of my position.I fail to see how this supports your position, for they never did raise their prices above competition prices. And no company has ever succeeded at outpricing the entire market and eliminating competition completely. It is also illogical for a company to do so, for if a company raises it's prices, this gives consumers the incentive to buy elsewhere, or for more competition to be created. My opponent's argument actually fails on two points: 1. Standard Oil never raised their prices above competition. Standard Oil never eliminated all competition in order to raise their prices. 2. It is illogical for companies to raise their prices, even if there is absolutely no competition on the market, for this gives way for more competition to come onto the market, which no monopoly would want.
The Idea of a Natural Monopoly is a Fallacy

Now, I think that it would be trivial to only take into account the basic definition of a monopoly. Surely there are other characteristics of a monopoly that should be taken into account as well. My opponent included other characteristics as well so I only see it fair. In 1904 it accounted for 91% of the entire American refining capacity and 85% of the sales.I won't argue with this. Standard Oil is a big company. But, one thing my opponent mentions is Microsoft, which is also a very big company. But, it is not technically considered a monopoly by law. Microsoft has been charged with illegal actions of manipulating certain programs of other companies to try to acheive monopolistic power, but these charges were also overturned due to errors in the due process of law. So if Microsoft isn't considered a monopoly, how can Standard Oil be considered one? Also, we must address the fact that size does not always mean monopoly. Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry (or market).[4]Now this surely can't be applied to Standard Oil, OR Microsoft, for they have done nothing but lower the prices of their industries. They made their industries much more efficient. As I stated above, the price of Kerosine went down 90%. Furthermore, it is impossible for an industry to do this and still remain in power. Let's say Wal-Mart, which is currently the largest superstore industry in America, were to suddenly raise their prices higher than, let's say...Target. Wal-Mart would begin to lose business because naturally, people want to spend less and have no incentive to spend more money on a product they can always get cheaper. If Standard Oil would have done this, they would have lost business sales, and Sun Oil would have become a larger company on the market as long as Standard Oil did not restructure. The idea that these companies can charge high prices because of their place on the market is illogical because there is always competition. This is however irrelevant to the debate which is “The Idea of a Natural Monopoly is a Fallacy”You're right. I included this to show where monopolies truly come from, which is not the free market. My opponent makes an error in one of barrier arguments. b) Resources Control: There is only one source of the product. A news item I read yesterday is a funny example where Novak Djokovic<3> bought the entire world’s supply of Donkey Cheese. He now controls 100% of World sales at least for now.This would technically not be considered a monopoly. This is what is called a monopsy, where a company is the only producer of a certain good and there is no competition whatsoever. This should not be taken into account. I appreciate the patience and the professional attitude of my opponent. Civil debates are much better than basically name-calling debates. :)http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
These two situations are just as moral.

For my opponent's assertion that the original resolution required there be no extenuating circumstances which apply in one situation and not the other, I should say that I feel that this debate would be more aptly titled "Given no extenuating circumstances, these two situations are equally as moral. " Were that the title of the debate, I would not have accepted it. When my opponent stated in Round 1: "The train would kill the children if the tracks were not switched. The children in both cases will live equally productive lives. There are no extenuating circumstances which apply in one and not in the other. " I presumed that he was through defining the debate and was now providing his arguments. I figured that his suggestion that there are no extenuating circumstances was his opinion of the 2 situations, not a stipulation built into the situations. To make it a stipulation built into the 2 situations, it should have been included in the resolution title, or else the resolution should have been defined more clearly in the first round. ------------------------- That said, I may as well finish up the debate, as it's the last round and, well, what the hell. Also, my opponent has essentially quashed my 'choices' argument, but he still only has one basic argument of his own; that the end justifies the means in moral situations. I showed in Round 1 that this was not necessarily the case, and will further my argument here. The basic argument my opponent is making is that due to the end justifying the means, the two situations are equally as moral. I would suggest that my opponent's and my own assertion that we would make the decision which killed 1 person in one instance, but would make the decision that would kill 50 people in the other instance, shows that the INHERENT morality present in both cases is DIFFERENT, so long as there are no extenuating circumstances which apply in one and not in the other. The example shows the subjectivity of morality, that it can seem moral to kill 1 person to save 50 in one instance, but completely immoral to do the same thing in the next.
These two situations are just as moral.

However I must point out that the original resolution required that: There are no extenuating circumstances which apply in one and not in the other. These differences cited by my opponent are simply situationally supposed extenuating circumstances which can be clearly remedied by varying the situation slightly. What if the homeless man was the only person who had the required blood type. What if rather than an indepth action, the homeless man was already wired to a machine which would drain his life and by some unknown mechanisms save the children. What if the body parts weren't specifically for transplant but you had a generator that ran on human fat and could be powered to keep these children alive during a known ten minute black out. In short, let us suppose there are no alternatives available to him. This homeless man is the children's ONLY chance. No weaseling out is permitted in either case. Either the train kills the children or the homeless man. Either the illness kills the children or you sacrifice the homeless man. There are no secret third options available to you. However, again. .. I would switch the tracks and watch the children die of the illness. Even if, by virtue of this hypothetical, there are no potential other options. The situations are alike in every morally significant way. What you supposed was the difference in one, is when rectified by decree, not changing a damned thing. Even if we know for a fact that there are no other options for the children the situations and decisions do not change. In order to tell if you have a real solution verses a non-solution, if that difference you propose didn't exist would you thusly do the same in both situations? Without a substantive difference between the two, is my resolution not proven by that failure? Thank you.