BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is Both Religious and Scientific

First off, I would like to apologize to my opponent for my misinterpreted topic and underlying meanings. I failed to come up with a word that best described my intentions; for "religious", "spiritual" would more or less suffice as a substitution. In relation to "scientific", please note that I incorporate the term "physical" very closely with the definition of scientific. Regarding "God", the usage of a proper noun may have caused a misguided understanding; You will understand what I mean here shortly. On another note, I would like to inform my opponent that I intended this to be a theoretical debate, considering the fact that one cannot prove the existence of God let alone define God's characteristics. Considering my exact words were not my original intention, I'll also start off by giving some definitions: The Oxford Dictionaries define God as "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority"; ruler is defined as "a person exercising government or dominion"--govern defined as "control, influence, or regulate (a person, action, or course of events)"; spiritual is defined as "of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things"; and the definition I propose to use for physical is "of or relating to physics or the operation of natural forces generally". [1] [2] [3] [4] *Not all definitions are used in this round. Some may be used in upcoming rounds On to the main argument: In reference to the definitions above, God is creator and ruler of the universe. Actual beings can create and rule. We know for a fact that not everything is created by beings; inversely, we know that many things are created by events, or reactions, if you will. Consider The Big Bang Theory (an event/reaction). The widely accepted theory broadly explains the creation and evolution of our universe. The creation of the universe, whatever specific type of creation that may be, thus sets up a paradigm of the evolution, or how future events play out and come to order--otherwise designating the title of "ruler". [5] I would now like to make a point to my opponent that reference should be made to the previous comment about the usage of a proper noun regarding god. According to definition, The Big Bang is considered god since it is a matter of creation and is a ruler on technical terms. Of course, this is not my complete argument, but a comprehensive portion rather. Detailed interpretation will present itself in future rounds. I only say that in the act of being proactive as to not create anymore miscommunication between my opponent and I. [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [4] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [5] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
God is Both Religious and Scientific

I'll begin with some definitions: According to Princeton's Wordnet, "God" is a "the object of worship in monotheistic religions;" "religious" means "having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity;" "scientific" means "conforming with the principles or methods used in science. " [1] [2] [3] I would like to kindly remind my opponent that as the pro and the instigator, she has the burden of proof. To prove that God is religious, one would need to prove that God has or shows belief in a deity. First I ask, what god does God believe in? Secondly, for God to believe in something, God must exist. However, the Judeo-Christian God cannot exist. Proof 1: God is supposed to be both omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing). But these are not both possible. If God is all knowing, then he knows every future decision he will make. However, if he is all powerful, he must have the power to change his mind. But if he changes his mind, then God was not omniscient. Proof 2: Along the same lines, if God is omnipotent, he can create a box whose contents even he cannot know. However, if he is omniscient, he would have to know what is in the box. [4] God is scientific: For God to be scientific, the concept of God must comport with the scientific method. The scientific method requires that one develop a "testable hypothesis. " [5] A testable hypothesis is an explanatory theory that can be proven correct or incorrect through observation. Since it is impossible to prove the concept of "God" incorrect through scientific observation, "God" is inherently un-scientific. An example of a scientific concept is evolution. When asked what observation could disprove evolution, J. B. S. Haldane famously answered "a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian. " There is not a single observation that could disprove God. I now turn the debate over to my opponent for her to establish her case. I look forward to hearing her arguments. [1] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [4] . http://www.wikihow.com... [5] . http://www.talkorigins.org...
God is Both Religious and Scientific

I will take that into consideration for future debates. I'll once again attempt to explain my original intention and try to clear up confusion. My reasoning for leaving out "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions)" is because I was not necessarily presenting my case upon the Christian or religious God; this would be my reasoning for not responding to my opponent's proofs that the Judeo-Christian God cannot exist. I used the broad, nonreligious definition so that I wouldn't create the false understanding of saying, "The Christian God is both Religious and Scientific". I assumed that my opponent would find that obvious (another place where I went wrong). I should have presented that case and explained it first off. Also, I would like to let my opponent know that my last argument wasn't so much and argument as it was an explanation of what I was about to present. Since I do not stand by the literal interpretation that "God is Religious and Scientific", I will agree to "argue that God's existence (and a literal interpretation of the Bible) do not conflict with established science" as long as my opponent is still up for arguing this. If my opponent wishes to do so as well, I will let him present his argument in the next round while I respond to his other statements. With that said, I apologize for this not being the typical debate on this site. I restate the fact that I do not regard god as the Christian or religious God. Therefore, the bible has no relevance thus far. If the future rounds end up debating "God's existence (and a literal interpretation of the Bible) do not conflict with established science", then references to the Bible will become relevant. My opponent mentions "Believers often try to reconcile the age of the Universe with the age of the Biblical universe". I accept the fact that I may stand corrected after stating this: People attempt to say that the actual age of the universe corresponds with the Biblical age of the universe, from what my opponent says. From my understanding, this analogize with the fact of different measurement systems: the metric system and the standard measuring system. Both ages may be correct, but are interpreted differently: Just like one metric meter is equivalent to 10 3/4 square feet, one Biblical year may equal 2,100,000 light years. With that said, the actual age may present to be true value of the universe's age, and the Biblical age may be true on religious terms with the idea that religion was created to help explain the unexplainable. My previous statement more or less goes along with the debate of God conflicting or not conflicting with established science, not the previous debate.
Is america a democracy? AS awc english 101

Do we live in a Democracy when Gerrymandering takes place? In America today people are being ignored; the government does not listen to what the people have to say about issues that affect their lives. For example the communities in Long Island have issues with not having a fair share of voting power; new lines have split the minority communities in two different districts making it harder for minorities to speak for one voice. Half of the American people are not aware of what is going on during redistricts; they assume our votes count when all it is real doing is diluting our votes. Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Gerrymandering exists because population is always changing; so redistricting has to be done. Gerrymandering is judged negatively because redistricting draws the lines unfairly to favor one party for power in congress. Gerrymandering favors politics than for people; Politics have a powerful voice than the people because redrawing the districts favors the both parties. Washington redistricting has young people feel disconnected, Immigrants feel like their voices aren"t being herd and they all share common interest so people say "it"s unrealistic". My idea for redistricting is for the people to have the voice and to get rid of gerrymandering so that it can be fairly divided for the both parties.
Being gay is NOT a sin

For future arguments, kindly try to break up your paragraphs a little more. I can have trouble reading it compounded into one body. Thank you.The idea of a sexual orientation (in rome for this part, as that is what paul spent most of his time addressing) was relatively unnecessary. People could have sex with anyone lower in class than them regardless of anything and it was common practice, not just in pegan rituals. Rome was in general messed up. In rome, most marriages were simply for the sake of social standing, where as sex and even love was often put apon their slaves.Basically in Rome, there was no need for the idea of homosexuality and the Jews saw it more as an act.The sins regarding sexual relations in general are mentioned within the new testement, sins that also still apply and are categorized similerly include; Having sexual relations with your mother, having sexual relations with animals, with your siblings, and your family's partners.None of this is shown to only apply to religious sex, but rather is considered a defilement of creation. Notice the use of words when bibliclly such acts are refurred to, you see things such as "perversion" or "detestable". I see this as showing it more in the spirt of twisting good then worshiping idols, unlike some other old testament rules like the one against tattoos.The relationship between David and Jonathan was of strong friendship not romantic love. Romantic love and friendship love are both different in nature, and can be just as strong.I am comparing consensual love between two human beings to bestiality. The reason for this is because they are similar in nature as sins, both being considered a perversion of sex. I know many people do not like the two being compared but it fits quite well.I see no need for attraction in a romanitic relationship, yet regardless the attraction itself does not require action. I see dating rather as a way of making sure the other person is a good fit with you before making a commitment as big as being willing to love someone.I hope I properly addressed your points, as I may of missed much in A2 in particular, and tend to panic somewhat when the timer goes below 24 hours.
Being gay is NOT a sin

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. -Romans 1:27 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. -Leviticus 18:22 Seems simple enough, we all sin in numerous ways daily and this is just one more. Is the act of being attracted to someone of your own gender a sin? No, yet lusting for it and acting on it are both sins. It is a twisting of love, just as Zoophilia. Love as I know it in both the bible and in life, is not based on attraction at all, rather choosing to put the other person before yourself no matter what, and to stay with them. This remains a choice constantly chosen again throughout the relationship.
Schools should be segregated by sex.

I apologize sincerely, I thought you were pro. My mistake. If you wish I will present the Con argument to you, or not. I do not for one second believe in segregation based on sex, religion, race or diet. I would be willing to present my version of the argument as I perceive it from those that believe it should be this way if you wish. Thanks, great topic, sorry I effed up your debate.
Schools should be segregated by sex.

In my opinion, I think that schools shoud not be segregated by sex. First, students should learn social skills. When they grow up, they will spend more time that they had spent in the school. Society is not segregated by sex, instaed, every sex is respected. If they cannot have real-life experience, they will have trouble adapting to the society's condition. Second, segregated schools require so much money. Government or the school have to train teachers, develop more materials. It would be hard to prepare those money. In addition, Society may not respect diversity. It my tilt to one side. Also, male will not understand females, and females will not consider males. That will cause problems. They might be judged in an unequal way. There are not much difference in works or scores between schools doing co-education and segregated education. Because of these reasons, I disagree that schools should be segregated.
Should music stay in our school system

There are so many careers in music you could be a music teacher for grade school, Band teachers, Orchestra teachers, You could be in a travailing sympathy, You can be a marching band instructor for collage and high school and some times even grade school, The people who make little jingles for commercials. Just because you aren't a celebrity musician doesnt mean there are not normal paying jobs for people with musical training and there are so many more then what I just named off. If kids enjoy music so much they can do it extra curricular. Some kids can't do extra curricular activities because they take place after school, There are a lot of students who's parents are unable to pick them up after school and if that school doesnt have a late bus after school they can't get home. Some students may have after school jobs or may just not be aloud to do after school activities. Most the classes you take in school you could teach yourself online the internet replaces a lot of these classes, If someone really wanted to learn math or sciences and was truly motivated they could learn by just reading tutorials on google. Someone wanting to learn music could maybe do the same but a lot of students can only get a instrument by borrowing one from a school and a musical instrument is hard to learn without any instruction.
Should music stay in our school system

Music classes promote team work which is one of the most important skills for any member of society to have. Every other subject does that if not better. In my personal situations music had very little teamwork compared to math and science. And these subjects help you get a job not music. Music allows student to express themselves creatively and for a lot of students there music classes are the reason they want to go to school. Music allows student to express themselves creatively and for a lot of students there music classes are the reason they want to go to school. Well I'm sorry but they need to grow up. Today's society doesn't care about good you are at music. To make money you need to study Math And Science And English. Music also promotes open minded thinking and problem solving, Say your playing a piece of music and can't get a certain part down if your passionate about music you will try to learn better ways to practice so you can learn your part more efficiently which in the long run will help develop better study skills. Nothing you can't do in Math and science. Wich will actually help you in life like I previously stated.
Should music stay in our school system

I believe music is a very important part of any school system and there are a few reasons for that. Music classes promote team work which is one of the most important skills for any member of society to have. Music allows student to express themselves creatively and for a lot of students there music classes are the reason they want to go to school. Music also promotes open minded thinking and problem solving, Say your playing a piece of music and can't get a certain part down if your passionate about music you will try to learn better ways to practice so you can learn your part more efficiently which in the long run will help develop better study skills.
The Roblox Corporation are cash whores who take advantage of kids to make more money

In this debate I will argue that Roblox Corporations is not a cash whore that takes advantage of kids.First of all, I would like to draw the attention of audience to the fact that Roblox has an established online platform with 56 million users participating each month(http://uk.businessinsider.com...). The Roblox Corporation in the early 2017 has collected 92 million dollars through successful strategic alliance with multiple well-known investors. In particular Meritech Capital Partners and Index Ventures has led the financing, their previous investment were into Snapchat and Facebook ( https://www.gamesindustry.biz...). Besides, the platform is compatible with android, IOS, Mac, Xbox one and Amazon devices. Roblox keeps only 30% of revenue, splitting the revenue with content creators (https://www.gamesindustry.biz...). Therefore, the company has an official account and record of its operations. In addition, it has involved huge amount of children, some of which has become content creators and now have a source of revenue and a platform to express themselves."From a vision standpoint we saw it as being that big," he continues. "We never computed the numbers, but we always felt that we need to get our top creators over the $10 million a year mark. This is great progress towards that level, at which top creators become vibrant studios working on the Roblox platform." , - the key developer says.In addition, Business Insider provides various examples of teenagers that have found their community and want to contribute it the development of the Roblox. For instance, "Matthews does freelance design and also streams Roblox game play to her Twitch channel. She hopes to parlay her participation in the Roblox community into a job at the company itself."Finally, I would like to conclude my first round out of the three. Roblox is a creative and developing community that brings revenue and pleasure to its participants. I have provided extensive genuine evidence and references proving this.
The Roblox Corporation are cash whores who take advantage of kids to make more money

Roblox is just one big scam to get kids to buy their useless items. Multiple studies have shown that kids and teens are unable to properly decision make because of their brains are not fully developed and are still growing. Roblox takes advantage of that of making useless catalog items that are purely aesthetic that cost over 3000$ for a game that is "free". One advertisement in particular is animated where a bunch of people are on Roblox and they are suddenly becoming cooler looking with gear and clothing wearing Roblox packages which are sets of clothing you buy for a bunch of robux which is the in game currency. Which costs a bunch of money. It's not just roblox at fault though. It's the toxic community of cyber bullies which encourages kids to persuade their guardians to buy them useless crap for a free game. There also used to be another in game currency that you got for FREE! Something that was actually free on roblox was tix. Tix was a currency on roblox you got for playing on games. You could use tix to buy clothing to put on your character or trade it for robux. They have since then gotten rid of tix. Though there were some good reasons why they got rid of tix but this just hurt roblox as a good game and ultimately caused it's toxic 10 year old player base. This also turned them into bigger money cows making money off of naive kids and parents. I am not saying that you shouldn't buy anything on roblox though. A lot of those developers deserve that money for so much coding that goes into roblox. I am saying that they don't need to have insanely pricey items that stupid people will buy.
Euthanasia

If abortion is legal, which is the end of the life of a being who is not able to make the decision for themselves, than how could euthanasia be illegal? If euthanasia were to become a legal part of the system, any opinions other than the patients should be closely monitored and examined by either a psychologist or caretaker of the patient. In the end, there are more patients in TRUE pain who are requesting such a procedure, than there are patients who are 'cheating' the system. It was a nice debate, Desaulniers.
Euthanasia

"Emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for depressed or dependent people. If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a decision to receive care, many people will feel guilty for not choosing death." A majority of the patients that go through with euthanasia do it because they do not want to be a burden on their family, not because they actually feel as if it is the only rationaly decision. The ill or injured patients will feel pressured to choose to die because of the people around them, and this will lead to quick decisions that do not rely on what the patient truly wants to do with their life but what they feel they should do. There is also the point of finances, it is much cheapper to die by euthanasia than to keep receiving care, so money gets in the way of what people want to do and they do not decide clearly. http://www.euthanasia.com...
Euthanasia

Euthanasia should cause no harm to others, if the patient undergoes true agony. The state and other people should not have the right to interfere. People have the rights to attempt making the events in their lives as acceptable as possible, with that they should also obtain the right to die in a state where they feel relaxed and are fully aware of the day ahead. People in such severe perplexed states of physical discontentment DO NOT have to feel the fear and anxiety of death come upon them in the unimaginable ways pictured if euthanasia becomes legalized.
Euthanasia

I would be lying if I said that I do not believe that people do not take advantage of the government. Sadly, there are many cases and people accused of following through with euthanasia due to the reasons you previously listed. If Euthanasia is legalized, there will certaintly be higher numbers of people requesting such a procedure, but obviously there will be high restrictions and the waiting list itself can be monumental at times. Mental and physical issues are entirely different. A procedure such as this will occur only through extensive evaluation.
Euthanasia

"Assisted suicide might start with the terminally ill, but eventually, there will be pressure to extend that right to the physically disable, mentally handicapped, the depressed, or the aged" (Calgary, Herald). Herald makes the point that if euthanasia is legalized, it will soon lose the parameters that are entitled with it. In order for euthanasia to take place, you must be severely ill or injured with the knowledge that your life will never be worth living again. If euthanasia is made legal, it will start with those people that are ill and injured, but it will escalate towards those that suffer mentally, to those who are aging, and to those who could declare depression with valid reasons not to live. Suicide is never the right choice, legalizing it will only make it the way out for everybody even if they have the chance to live a fulfilled life. Euthanasia will promote suicide if made legal. "Human Life Must Be Valued." Calgary Herald. 08 Aug 2011: A.8. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 16 Oct 2013.