BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If the god of the Bible exists as described in the Bible, then he has commited child abuse.

First, I am assuming that all evidence must come from the Bible since if we both accept the premise (If the god of the Bible exists as described in the Bible), then the Bible is the only reliable source of information about the god of the Bible (from here out I will refer to this entity as God).I am assuming that to find God guilty of child abuse that Pro must reasonably show that a court would find him guilty of child abuse as defined in [1], specifically: "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation" "An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."[1] Furthermore, [1] defines "child" as: A "child" under this definition generally means a person who is younger than age 18 or who is not an emancipated minor. For Pro to win this debate they must do the following: Present at least one case where God was indeed either the parent or caretaker of a child (as defined above). If no cases can be found where God can be shown to be the parent or caretaker of a child, then God has had no children to commit child abuse against. If Pro can find a case that satisfies the legal definition of parent or caretaker, then they must present evidence that shows God committed child abuse as defined in [1] (although multiple cases would strengthen the argument). Con holds that there are three possible cases that might satisfy the first condition. Con argues that in none of these cases does God qualify as the parent or caretaker and that, even in the 3rd case, if Pro can show that God was the parent (or caretaker), that no abuse occurred. Adam - Adam was created as an adult and thus was never under the age of 18. Eve - Likewise, Eve was never a child. Jesus - Jesus might be considered God's son. First, Con does not concede this and so Pro must still prove Jesus would be considered God's child. Although God might have been Jesus's biological father, Jesus was essentially adopted by Joseph and Mary and thus they became Jesus's legal guardians absolving God as the parent/caretaker. Similarly, if foster parents abuse a child, the biological mother and father are not held responsible. Furthermore, there is no evidence of child abuse perpetrated against Jesus in the Bible.
If the god of the Bible exists as described in the Bible, then he has commited child abuse.

If the god of the Bible exists as described in the Bible, then he has committed child abuse.R1 acceptance, definitions, clarifications onlyI, Pro will have the BoP. I will prove that the god depicted in the Bible, if real, is a child abuser.Child Abuse: "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation" "An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."[1] [1]https://www.childwelfare.gov...
It is not necessary to understand things to debate them well.

=============== DEFINITIONS: =============== I agree to all of the definitions except for the definition of debate. I feel it is better defined as simply an argument instead of a an argument and a discussion. =============== BURDENS: =============== I must disagree with my opponent burdens. He says he must simply show one case however the resolution is worded as a general rule. Thus the resolution does allow for flukes. I believe my opponent must prove this as a general rule in order for the burdens to be fair in this round. I have created over a thousands blades. ============== OBSERVATIONS: ============== "Winning a debate is not the only way to debate something well, as long as the argument is either satisfying or meets some other high standard. " I agree with this statement of my opponents however I must also argue that winning a debate does not necessarily mean it was debated well. For instance one can forfeit every round and still win providing one's opponent does the same. I contest that debating well in this situation would be the ability to hold one's ground against a debater who does understand. ============= Hypothetical Cases: ============= This is most likely true. I believe it is rather easy to win with semantic based arguments if one has no idea what the debate is intended to be about. However in order to attack the semantics you must first understand the words or at least some of the words used in the resolution. Thus even in my opponents case some level of understanding is required. Unaware of loss. Nor aware of gain. ============== Cases: ============== It is true, I have one the debate in which my opponent speaks of. However I did not win this debate because I accused the debate and my opponent of being a witch. Those acts were done to humor the audience. I won in part on 3 voting issues: 1. I offer my opponent a constant viable alternative thereby rejecting the resolution. 2. I offer a voting issue geared around the idea that my opponents case rejects logic and this leads to horrible harms. 3. I offer the debate. org community a chance to set a precedence against illogical debate cases that should have no winner. Furthermore my opponent in this debate tells you one part of the debate but neglects to mention the last round in which I blatantly state, "I presented the entire witch argument as a practical joke. As I pointed out it was a semi-logical proof. It should be noted that I completely understood the witch argument in its semi-logical way and that it had no complete logical intention behind it. " Thus I obviously understood the witch argument. Your move.
It is not necessary to understand things to debate them well.

==================== Definitions: ==================== D0: Words requiring no definition: it, is, not, necessary, things, them. D1: To understand : to perceive the significance, explanation, or cause of. (1) D2: To debate : to discuss or argue about. (2) D3: Well : in a good or satisfying way. (3) D4: Good : having the required qualities; of a high standard. (4) D5: I am the bone of my sword. (1) http://www.askoxford.com... (2) http://www.askoxford.com... (3) http://www.askoxford.com... (4) http://www.askoxford.com... ==================== Burdens: ==================== B1: PRO must show that there is at least one scenario where a debater can not understand something and still debate it well. These scenarios will be referred to as 'cases' from here on out. B2: Because the resolution is philosophical in nature, a realistic hypothetical situation can be used as a case for PRO. B3: CON must show that any cases PRO brings up do not affirm the resolution per the guidelines stated in B1 and B2. ==================== Observations: ==================== O1: A debate that is won has the required qualities [since the point is to win]. The performance from the winner also meets a high standard, since one can do no better than win in a debate. O2: Steel is my body and fire is my blood. O3: A debate that is won is satisfying, since it has satisfied the voters or judges. The opponent's performance sets a certain expectation, and a better performance will satisfy this level of expectation (else the other guy would have won). O4: To show that something is debated well, it is sufficient to show that the debate has been won. O5: Winning a debate is not the only way to debate something well, as long as the argument is either satisfying or meets some other high standard. ==================== Hypothetical Cases: ==================== H1: It is possible to win a debate by attacking the semantics of the resolution, without a perception of the significance, explanation, or cause of the resolution. The resolution is still being debated, but it is not understood. H2: A debater, who has no understanding of what he's arguing, wins due to a forfeiture by his opponent. ==================== Cases: ==================== C1: http://www.debate.org... In this debate, some debater named Yraelz decided he could win as CON by arguing that the debate was a witch, therefore it should be voted against and burned. He shows a complete lack of understanding when it comes to the significance, explanation, and cause of the debate being a witch. However, this performance satisfied myself, Yraelz, and probably anyone else who read it. Thus, he debated this issue well, even though he had no understanding of it. I will leave it at that for now, and save my other weapons for later.
Empathy should have no role in judging appeals

Empathy is "the intellectual identification of the thoughts, feelings, or state of another person." http://en.wiktionary.org... or, similarly, "Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See synonyms at pity." http://www.answers.com... For this debate, "judging" is taken in the legal sense of performing the duties of a judge. A judge is "A public official who hears and decides cases brought before a court of law. ... A judge is one capable of making rational, dispassionate, and wise decisions" http://www.answers.com... The context of this debate is the legal system of the United States, and in particular the Federal judiciary. "... appeals courts review decisions of trial courts for errors of law. Accordingly, an appeals court considers only the record (that is, the papers the parties filed and the transcripts and any exhibits from any trial) from the trial court, and the legal arguments of the parties." http://en.wikipedia.org... We should want judges who reach decisions solely based upon the law, not feelings. Only then can citizens be assured a fair trial under the laws as written. A judge may be empathetic, but empathy should play no role in judging, which is to say it should not affect the decision rendered by the judge.
Stopping Illegal Immigration

Okay here is an attack on all of your arguments. 1. Your right, the border patrol is specially trained to contain the border. Well one question for you. WHY ISN'T IS WORKING? You seem to be all for the border patrol when really you have no idea that we are at the worst immigration level EVER. 2. Now what you say about the National Guard and Active Army makes no sense. Okay first the National Guard was made to protect WHAT? I can tell you the answer. AMERICA. If they are made to protect America then that is what they need to do. Also you say the the National Guard and Army cannot take on such a task but your saying that guys who are letting in 3 to 4 million illegals every year will do a better job. I dont understand your arguement. Apparently the so called technology that you say they have is not working. 3. Okay here is what gets me. "Illegal Immigration is good" What? These people are coming over here and what they do is make a threat of foreign terrorism and yes 1 out of 3 or 4 million can possibly be a terrorist or a criminal. Actually in California there are millions of murders, rapes, burglaries, and robbings that occur by illegal immigrants. If the argument you are going to make is that American do crimes also. Well at least we have records of them and to not be able to find these criminals would be so harmful for our country. 4. Okay really quick about the terms for the National Guard. Well first they can be told directly that they can serve on the border for 15 month enlistments or even 24. But whoever is joing the National Guard will be willing to serve our country regardless. 5. Now my last arguement just extends all my past points. Illegals are dangerous and they can do harm. I realize that every Illegal Immigrant isnt murderers and robbers but it doesnt matter even if the smallest amount were criminals we have to stop them. Boder Patrol troops are tired and need assistane. The NATIONAL GUARD AND THE ACTIVE ARMY CAN take care this problem if giving the chance. Finally we need to stop this problem or eventually we will be paying all of our Social Security money to pay for the over drought of people while they dont pay income tax.
Stopping Illegal Immigration

There are a number of problems with mostatebears17 arguments. 1. The border patrol are not volunteers, they are paid professionals. They have helicopters, vehicles, infrared cameras, guns, surveillance satellites, ect. They are specifically trained to guard the border and are the best force to do so. 2. The army and national guard are poorly equipped to guard the border. These branches of the armed forces are trained to do a very specific task: fight wars. They do not understand the nuances and intricacies of guarding the border, of arresting people, of the relevant international law, and of the rights of illegal immigrants. At best, the army and national guard would be ineffectual at guarding the border and at worse would violate the rights, abuse, and unnecessarily kill those attempting to cross the border. 3. It would be a particularity bad idea to have the national guard guard the border. When joining the national guard, new recruits are told that the extent of their commitment is one weekend a month, two weeks a year. The rest of the time, these people are just average people working normal, full time jobs, living with their families. Having them guard the border would amount to indefinitely drafting thousands of people, destroying their lives and hurting the economy by pulling so many productive people out of their jobs. Moreover, the national guard do not receive nearly enough training, let alone the right type of training, to be effective border guards 4. Illegal immigration is good, if not at least necessary. Those twelve million immigrants do not risk life and limb to come here to just lounge around. The vast majority, the major exception being their children, work one if not two or three jobs, jobs most Americans are not willing to take. Our economy needs those millions of jobs filled and preventing them from being done would hopelessly cripple the US economy. 5. The army is incapable of guarding the border. The army is stretched to the limit by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and simply do not have the resources or man power to guard the border. Having the army guard the border would require either a reduction of forces in Iraq or a reduction of the precious little time at home soldiers already have. Either option would be an unacceptable cost to gain what little border protection the army could give. 6. Illegal immigration is good because it is the only way that millions of people have to free themselves from economic and political oppression. Millions of people are virtually condemned to a life time of poverty, starvation, and oppression simply because they happened to be born in the wrong place. It is terribly dehumanizing and antithetical to the principals the United States supposedly supports. Illegal immigration is often the only recourse these millions of individuals have since legal immigration is a painfully slow and bureaucratic process. Even though these people were not born in the US, they still have a right to the same sort of political and economic freedoms we enjoy and the only option is illegally immigrating to the United States.
Stopping Illegal Immigration

In America right now there are aproximately 12 million illegal immigrants. Now my posistion on this topic is that there should be some sort of military force guarding our borders rather than a bunch of volunteers called the Border Patrol. If we had some National Guard troops or active Army troops on the border Illegal Immigration will almost drop to zero. Our Boder Patrol is tired, civilians, and they just can't get the job done with the limited resources they have. T.J. Bonner of the National Border Patrol said " As of right now we are working 3 shifts a day, 7 days a week and are simply overwhelmed" And thats exactly why we need to take this immigration problem into consideration and this is probably one of the top five problems we face in America today!
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act

For further reference, since I am not a citizen of the United States of America nor I understand the specific process for passing laws trough the United States of America government, it is important to clarify that the specific version that is going to be debated on is Version 4 of CISPA(H.R.3523) as provided by the Library of Congress.[1] I accept the proponent position in the basis of increased flexibility for cooperation between private and public sector in the USA and the public demonstration of the difference between privacy by policy and privacy by design. In both cases increasing security and privacy trough either direct means such as ability for a private entity to get involved in the detection and resolution of digital security threats and indirect means such as increased awareness of privacy by design systems such as Tor, Bitcoin, I2P, Namecoin, Freenet, Ripple and other systems which are not affected by this bill which should be implemented and used in a more mainstream fashion.[2] I would like to mention that even if I support the passing of CISPA, I would also argue in pro of security and privacy by design and the support and education of the matter. This debate should encompass both the direct and indirect impacts of the bill taking into account both the impact to the mainstream and the informed/savvy population. [1] http://thomas.loc.gov...: [2] http://www.youtube.com... [3] http://www.youtube.com...
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act

Simple debate/discussion regarding CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.I am against it, I would like to hear why you are for it.3 rounds acceptancearguments/ talking pointsrebuttals/ closing statmentsJust want to know why some people think that this invasion of privacy is a good thing."They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Franklin's Contributions to the Conference Fri, Feb 17, 1775
Morality is not intersubective

" I was not referring to an action that was made incorectly, but a person who CAN be rational but chooses not to be rational in pursuit of a moral action." By definition, the choice to not be rational is incompatible with discovering what is right or wrong. Rationality is the means to gaining knowledge, including knowledge of morality. "A more realistic example would be the army. Soldiers are trained to ignore risks to their lives and value victory or the life of a comrade higher. This is a choice that is made "prior to any other."" No soldier values victory "prior to any other thing," as an end in itself, victory begs the question of another goal, by it's very nature, since victory simply means achieving the goal of a specific task. A choice to take a risk to one's life does not mean a choice of suicide. The two are different things. Risks to one's life happen down every path, a soldier is one who is under the impression that the risks for their life are worse if they don't fight then if they do. Yes, Light Brigades charge, but by those actions they cease to live. By definition, a choice to take a risk to one's life is not certain death if one is still alive. Until they've made a choice of certain death they are, it happens, still subject to the fact that they chose to preserve their life-- long before they were ever aware there was a victory to be had. What one is trained to do, of course, is an entirely separate thing than what one values.
Morality is not intersubective

"They can attempt to make one, if they make it incorrectly, they have not made it in accordance with the standard which separates right and wrong-- i.e. have not made a moral one." I was not referring to an action that was made incorectly, but a person who CAN be rational but chooses not to be rational in pursuit of a moral action. Therefore, rationality is not a pre-requisite to morality. An abandonment of life can be a primary value in someone that is not yet dead. A more realistic example would be the army. Soldiers are trained to ignore risks to their lives and value victory or the life of a comrade higher. This is a choice that is made "prior to any other." And soldiers take action all the time. Just because they do not value their life does not mean that they value their death. So in summary. You claimed that a value of life is a universal moral code. I offer the example of a soldier who's measurement of right over wrong is not based on what will sustain his/her life, but what will lead to victory.
Morality is not intersubective

" Now you define people as a class of animals that is CAPABLE of free, rational action. Therefore, a person need not always be rational, simply have the ability. So a person can make a moral decision with out being rational. "" They can attempt to make one, if they make it incorrectly, they have not made it in accordance with the standard which separates right and wrong-- i.e. have not made a moral one. " Also, a person can choose to die, but not actually die. For example, an individual can decide it is morally right to die to save a baby, but that does not mean the person is ever placed in the situation to die to save a baby. That individual has the moral code to die, but has not died." You're identifying something outside the context of a primary. A primary value is needed for any consistent moral code. To give your example any meaning as an objection, it would have to be in accordance with a primary choice ( a choice that can be made prior to any other, such that others can be consistent with it), one you have not posited. Furthermore, there are many babies that need saving. Chop chop, I don't see anyone saving them, offering their flesh to the mother so that the mother's milk can have nourishment. Get a move on it people. It's the kind of thing that would make the news, we'd hear about it if it happened. So, since they don't exist, it's not meaningful. Someone might claim they'd do such a thing, but really, until they've faced the decision, it's mostly an emotional response to the sound "baby." It has little to do with consistently identifying right and wrong, for no such consistent value system could result in them still being alive as far as I can tell. "I can choose to die if it would save the life of my parents" And this would be consistent with everything else you've ever done? Somehow I don't think, when someone first acts toward their life, it ever occurs to them "I gotta save my parents," or "save a baby (who is not me)." Those inconsistencies come later. If they ever take action toward it, making final their choice, turning their pondering into their primary value, well-- they die in the act, they no longer have "people" status nor a need for morality. Choices are not made, until they are made, per the law of identity. One can consider whatever one pleases, but if one has not acted on a moral standard, one doesn't really hold it yet. "The "starting point" itself is subjectve. " Subjective? yes. Subjective BETWEEN PEOPLE? No. Those who do not choose as I have described (to live) cease to be people.
Morality is not intersubective

Now you define people as a class of animals that is CAPABLE of free, rational action. Therefore, a person need not always be rational, simply have the ability. So a person can make a moral decision with out being rational. Also, a person can choose to die, but not actually die. For example, an individual can decide it is morally right to die to save a baby, but that does not mean the person is ever placed in the situation to die to save a baby. That indivdual has the moral code to die, but has not died. So you are wrong when you say that if a person chooses to die, they no longer exist. I can choose to die if it would save the life of my parents, but I may never have to die to save my parents. I am still capable of rational action because I am still alive, so I am not excluded from the class. Thus, all people may not have made the choice to live. The "starting point" itself is subjectve.