BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You cannot soundly derive morality from 'god'.

I would like to start by saying this is my first debate, so I'm test driving this site. I'd like to keep this one short and sweet, straight to the point. Either god decides what is right and wrong, or he has no say in it. 1. If you say he goes decide what is right and wrong, then what is right and wrong has no worth at all, for he could say to wreck cars on Tuesdays and we would consider that as morally sound. If god picks what is right, then what is right is 100% arbitrary. 2. If he doesn't get a say, then why use him as a useless intermediate? Either a moral rule is intrinsically sound, or it isn't. This is a philosophical argument to show morality doesn't come from the divine, the examples in human biology and human evolution are much more numerous.
strip searching

All arguments extended. SCENARIO 4: You and your friend are sitting in a room, when a random guy walks in and pulls a gun on you. Because of Barack Obama's gun policies, neither you nor your friend posses a gun, so you are defenseless. The man beckons you towards your friend and says, "Strip search him." Your friend offers to strip himself, but the man turns and points his gun at your friend and says, "No. He has to strip search you." Your friend stops, looks at you, and says, "Come on, already! Strip search me! I don't want to die!" The man says, "You have twenty seconds, until I kill both you and your friend..." Sure, this is perhaps the most biased scenario ever conceived, but it gets the point across. Good luck!
strip searching

Okay, my opponent said, "I think even if we were sure the person has what he/she shouldn't have to a point of 99.99999999% we shoudl not strip search what so ever" I disagree, obviously. You need to give your argument some actual substance I'm going to counter his argument Kleptin-style, by listing situations in which we should strip-search someone. SCENARIO 1: A man walks into the white house. It is quickly noticed by security guards that a mysterious beeping noise is heard coming from his direction. The guards ask him what it is, and he claims that it is simply his beeper that he didn't know how to turn off. One of the security guards recognizes the sound to be that of a time bomb. The beeps suddenly quicken. There is a broom closet nearby to do a strip search in, and a bomb squad is standing by to disable any bombs. In this case, a strip search is necessary and completely justified. SCENARIO 2: A drunk man walks into the street and yells, "I have a bunch of illegal substances in my pants!" The police walk by, and their drug dogs run towards the man and bark at him. The police come over to investigate. The man suddenly decides to claim that he does NOT have illegal substances in his pants. The police obviously should strip search the man to identify that he does, in fact, have an illegal substance in his pants. SCENARIO 3: A man walks into an airport. The impression of a vial is clearly visible on the butt of his pants. The security guards ask him about this. The man claims that his butt naturally looks this way. The guards now have reason to believe that the man is hiding this vial because it contains something illegal, such as perhaps a bio-weapon to be released while on the plane. Should the security guards strip search him, or should they allow him to walk into the plane with a potentially dangerous weapon? I'm thinking the former. These are three scenarios in which strip searches are necessary to properly enforce the law. They are not the only scenarios; I will come up with more if necessary. Thank you for your patience.
Animal Testing is Inhumane and should be illegal

To my opponent: I apologize sincerely for losing a Round and you have my fully extended gratitude for not taking advantage of that. You've noted that you're more nonchalant regarding the forfeiture of Rounds, which is a true relief as well. I'll try to make this Round count to compensate for any sunken costs. /opponentNow, my opponent's argument in the previous Round starts off with a counter-argument for what I said about a lack of proof for animal testing requiring aforementioned abuse, to which my opponent mentioned makeup companies.I think this is a poor argument, as my opponent is arguing to ban animal testing altogether. Yes, it's absolutely insane to stab rats in their eyes for the sake of slight, temporary aesthetic appeal, but one faction abusing a power does not necessitate banning the power altogether.We've learned so much through animal testing. Do you know what the Monty Hall Problem is? It's named after the host of a show called "Let's Make A Deal." In the game, you are presented three doors. Behind two doors are unwanted prizes. Behind one door is a wanted prize. You are to choose one door, a one in three chance of getting your prize. However, instead of immediately opening that door, another door, containing an unwanted prize, is opened, leaving the door you chose and the other, unopened door to choose between, with the option to switch.So, analyze this. If you pick an unwanted door, then you will have a wanted prize as the alternate solution. If you pick a wanted door, you will have an unwanted prize as the alternate solution. There is a two out of three chance you'll pick an unwanted prize, meaning that there is a two out of three chance that switching over gets you your wanted prize and a one out of three chance that keeping your original choice would be optimal.Despite this logic, humans have been found to be frightfully conservative in their decision. Pigeons, on the other hand, were able to figure it out through the simplest way possible: Empirical statistics.[1]We never would have known this of pigeons had it not been for animal testing. Animal testing isn't all eye stabbings and chemical showers. We often test animals to learn more about them, to understand more about us. Banning animal testing altogether!? Keeping people ignorant of the capabilities of animals would only serve to have people mistreat them even more. If people knew the facts regarding the intelligence and emotional complexity of animals, I would venture to postulate that animal abuse would at least slightly decrease in spite of my cynical views.Not testing animals at all, while well-intentioned, is a terrible solution. Regulation, perhaps. Banning? Because of makeup companies, we ought to halt science altogether? If we thought like that about everything, we'd still be amidst a world of endless, unnecessary cruelty.As for the testing of criminals, I don't see why that idea is incompatible with testing on animals.1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Animal Testing is Inhumane and should be illegal

I am not strict on my rules only for forfeiting a debate, You could have only forfeited on round and come back and i'm okay with that but if you keep forfeiting and leave me a plain debate that goes over the line. I don't even have the best spelling/grammar so I let that pass unless you are on a Pre- K spelling level. Most makeup companies will stick stuff in their eyes. A good one to start with is L'Oreal. They use Rats, Apes, and Rabbits to test their makeup on. We are closely related to Apes so chimps will have chemicals that are in the Makeup stuck up in the eye by needles.http://4.bp.blogspot.com... As I said earlier, animals are born into it. These Animals always fear death and pain. Humans don't, we wake up, eat, go to work then fall back to sleep. These animals wake in a cage, sometimes are fed and will fear if its their day to have some needle in their eyes.http://arkforanimals.blogspot.com...In case my opponent actually means jail instead of prison, I'm going to make an argument against that. What!? Being in jail does not strip you of all citizen and consensual rights! That's not how jail works!Some people get out of prison, some don't. Many people have life terms in prison and are sitting down and doing nothing. They had to do something to get there right? Those animals were just breed to die. We could just use the Humans the killed a couple people then a animal that was breed to die.
Animal Testing is Inhumane and should be illegal

Thanks for accepting My reasons: Animal feel PainAnimals do feel pain just like me and you. When we test animals we will usually stick chemicals in their eyes and down their throat to see if the animal feels pain, well it does. Would you want to be stabbed in the eye or have a chemical bath for your favorite soap company? Well I wouldn't. I have pets at home and I love them and you might too, would you want them to be bathed in hot chemical then be skinned alive. I sure don't! So why is a helpless rabbit that was born into this or was never adopted at a shelter okay to be tested on for your well being?Why Can't We test the People we have in Jail instead That will make it a heck of a lot easier then to test on poor, helpless animals. The United States can save a bunch of money also and it can give us humans knowledge that if a human can use the cleaning products we can't too. We could also save a bunch of animals and use thoughts jails for something good like schools police stations or library's.
That the concept of limited atonement is supported by the Holy Bible

I will be arguing Con: That the concept of limited atonement is NOT supported by the Bible Terms: Limited Atonement: This is the third of The Five Points of Calvinism: the belief that Jesus did not die to save all humans. He died only for the sake of specific sins of those who are saved. Sometimes called "Particular Redemption. " www. religioustolerance. org/gl_l. htm Criteria: Whoever shows the more biblical (least "interpretation") view wins. Sources: The Bible will hold preeminence, but for minor points a widely respected historical source may be acceptable.
That the concept of limited atonement is supported by the Holy Bible

As I start this next round, I would like to point out that it is vital for both teams to support their points with Scripture. As I address Pro's points, please keep that in mind. First of all, my opponent addressed John 3:16 by equating "whosoever believeth" and "through him might be saved", with his idea that "God loves the world enough to save those who believe in him". However, there is no connection. Although I agree with my opponent that those who believe in Him will be saved, and the rest damned, but there is a difference between limited salvation and limited atonement. Pro used the limited salvation parts ("whosoever believes") of John 3:16 to support his limited atonement argument, but there is no connection. My focus on John 3:16 was that "God so loved the world" that he gave his son. This clearly shows the universal atonement theology. Also important is "God did not send his Son to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved." This part of the verse shows that God sent Jesus to give the world the opportunity to be saved. This is universal atonement.Regarding the verses from Isaiah, my opponents position is that all the pronouns, "we", "us", "the many", "their", are referring only to the Jews and saved believers. However, this is merely my opponent's arbitrary interpretation. This a prophetic passage about the coming Christ, and can be applied universally. From a logical standpoint, since we know that all sin, and since this verse indicates that the atonement parallels the sin, it is impossible to ignore the conclusions. Regarding the wording of "many", this is a contrast to the One (Christ), which emphasizes the sacrifice of Christ. It does not limit the sacrifice. My opponents arguments must be supported by Scripture itself, and not merely by interpretation. Moving down, my opponent misunderstood my point about limiting God's love. He represented my argument as "Calvinism limits God’s love by making him wrathful". I understand the importance of righteous wrath; what I was actually trying to say is that Limited Atonement limits God's love inherently, since it limits atonement. If God loves only those who will eventually turn to him, it limits his love.As a final point, I would like to point out a small, but important problem with Pro's case. He consistently implies that Limited Atonement is a Calvinist doctrine, and that Calvin is widely respected and correct. First, I would like to reiterate that my opponent's arguments must be based off of Scripture, and not man's wisdom. Second, Limited Atonement is not a Calvinist doctrine. Consider Calvin's commentary on Mark 14:24: "The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race...the world is redeemed by the blood of Christ."[1] Rather, this doctrine has been added by extreme Calvinists in later years.As I've shown, Pro has failed to prove his arguments with Scripture. Con's arguments remain intact.[1]http://www.theologyweb.com...
That the concept of limited atonement is supported by the Holy Bible

I will organize my arguments under the following:1. Bible verses that refute Limited atonement, explained2. The main problem of Limited atonementBible verses that refute Limited atonementIt is very handy that I memorized the following verses at an early age, since I will use them first as an example of the unlimited atonement. They may be the first verses any of you memorized: John 3:16-17 (KJV)"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. "This shows clearly the concept of an unlimited redemption. It also refutes the idea that God created some men to go to hell. Isa 53:5-6"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. "This verse explicitly shows that the LORD atoned for the sins of us all, not just eventual believers. The wording just doesn't allow for limited atonement. There are many other verses in the Bible that show support. But for now I will move on to the main problem caused by Limited Atonement. The Main Problem caused by Limited AtonementFirst off, it limits the love of God. Extreme Calvinists place much weight on the infinite holiness of God, but his other attributes are just as infinite. The position that God does not love some of the people he created is untenable, since it makes God's love finite. God is love. God so LOVED the world, he sent his Son. The philosophy that God rejects, hates most of the world is completely contrary to the scripture. So from all the above you can see that the philosophy of Limited Atonement, rather than being supported by the Bible, lies in direct opposition to the Holy Scripture.
The Christian God Created Life On Earth

I admit it. I was pressed for time, and yeah I did it. I also know how to fool Turnitin (lol the turnitin bot can't "read" Quizlet).As Voltaire said, "if you want to learn your place, learn who you can't publically criticize".Let's keep this short:The elephant in the room.Abiogenesis.My opponent and I proved two conflicting sources regarding abiogenesis.It is up to the voters to decide which is more trustworthy; either the site that proved it, or the site that overturned it.One will prove we came from the luck of the draw, the other will prove we were created by an intelligent designer (much like making a computer chip-- how likely is it that they are made from the Amazon? And compare making carbon arrangements to making proteins).One will deny, and one will show there was a mastermind behind the Big Bang.Moving on:Proof of Theories.Black holes must not exist;A scientific theory is one that provides indisputable proof and an explanation for an observation.Black holes are not yet indisputably proven-- even its founder, Stephen Hawking, is coming up with arguments to prove that they are false.http://www.universetoday.com...http://phys.org...http://www.dailymail.co.uk...(happy?)Thus, my opponent's definition of what qualifies as an accepted theory is faulty.I thank my opponent for this challenge. This has been an interesting one for me, since I've never had to go so strongly against my beliefs for a debate before. It was also a wild field trip of cherry picking evidence (yes I'll admit to it too).This debate reminded me of Murhpy's Laws-- anything that can go wrong will go wrong.Just note, I'm a deist; it sorta rubbed in during the debate. I never understood Christians.
The Christian God Created Life On Earth

If you can't accept, respond in comments*You are Pro**I am Con*ResolutionThe Christian God Created Life On EarthProHas the burden of proof and 4 sets of 10,000 (40,000 total) characters to demonstrate that the christian god created life on earth and refute Con.ConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 (30,000 total) characters to refute Pro.*NO ACCEPTANCE ROUND...in fact there are no rounds, so use your characters as you wish to meet your burden of proof.*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.*Definitions can be changed however, in the comments section, before the debate, as long as both Pro and Con agree. Definitions (from Google definitions)christian - of the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.created - brought something into existencelife - the condition that distinguishes animals, bacteria, and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.earth - the planet on which we live; the world.May the better argument win!
The U.S should abolish the Minimum Wage

The resolution is: The U.S Should Abolish the Minimum WageI will be arguing against the resolution, Pro will argue for it. BoP is shared.I am mainly debating this to confirm my position on this, but I am definitely leaning towards the pro-MW stance.DefinitionsMinimum Wage: Lowest wage permitted by law.Abolish: get rid ofRules:Not many really, just no kritiks or semantical arguments. If you wanna negotiate definitions please use the comments.Oh yeah, but no new arguments in the last round pls.Structure:My opponent can either use the first round to write opening arguments, or my opponent can use the first round for acceptance. If he/she chooses to use first round for arguments, he/she will need to waive their last round.I would like to follow the pattern of Acceptance -> Arguments -> Rebuttals -> Defense
Americans aren't focusing on the big issues, they only stick with little debates that never end.

I don't think you quite get what I'm saying, there are bigger things, there are more important things, the legalization of marijuana is only important to druggies. That's one of the smallest issues in existence. What, you think the American people are focused on the big picture? You honestly believe that if we continue fighting over these same things we've been fighting about forever, things will change, people need to focus on corporatism, inequality, and oppression. Not what harmful drugs we should be allowed to take, or who can have a stupid little piece of metal on there finger. Surely you must agree, there's a problem here, and we need bigger, more important things debated over!
Americans aren't focusing on the big issues, they only stick with little debates that never end.

So, what you're saying is that the legalization of Marijuana is a huge argument, and is big to a certain social group? And you also believe that gay marriage is a big deal? You do realize how moronic marriage is right? A piece of paper really shows that two people love each other a lot. This debate wasn't set up to talk about other topics out of America, I'm talking about what people debate and what people find as the big issues here. What you're saying is that you believe Americans are debating about big issues now? Yes immigration is a big issue, and yes people are debating about that, but I never hear about how America is turning to corporatism, or how corrupt banks are, and I've rarely ever heard much on the NRA or IRS anymore, it's all this news about wars in the Middle East that aren't even necessary, and you could argue that talking about those wars is a big issue, but people are talking about how we should stay out of one, only to get into another one, we've stopped telling the government to bring our troops home, and the intelligent here want all of them back home. And besides, do you realize how many Americans also don't get into politics at all? I don't want to have to tell you how many people I've meet that don't care what the government is doing and how many people are being oppressed or exploited, so don't try to tell me that the majority of Americans are arguing about big issues. Oh, and by the way. World English Dictionary America - n 1.short for the United States of America 2.Also called: the Americas the American continent, including North, South, and Central America
Americans aren't focusing on the big issues, they only stick with little debates that never end.

To start, and I don't mean to be a stickler but, America refers to both North and South America, so when you say Americans what you're referring to are the citizens in both continents. What I think you mean to say is United States Citizens. Anyways, I would argue that the United States is made up of such a diverse crowd that it is hard to even focus peoples attention on big issues like global warming and world hunger. Also, though you claim that United States citizens focus only on the small issues it is important to note the condition of the current media. In short, the news reports on mainly negative happenings around the world EX: road side bombs, murders, robberies, etc. This constant spew of negative happenings in the world give the regular viewer a kind of false depiction of the world. This can lead to a skewed and unchangeable point of view. Another stance I would take is that the issues you perceive as small or less important may be a big issue for someone else, in fact it may be the whole driving force behind a social group. So, I would say that it's not that people aren't focusing on these issues, it's that people are misinformed about the condition of the world in some respects and categories, and that people are apart of different social groups that have differing norms and values. I have more reasons but I feel like this is enough for now.
Americans aren't focusing on the big issues, they only stick with little debates that never end.

Americans usually focus on very little things, such as legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, whether government officials should have to pray before debating. People will even fight outside of politics and just debate for an eternity about whether god is real, evolution, nothing that will change this country, and debates that will never end. Then it seems like the big things are small to these people, things like minimum wage, medical care, equal rights for all genders and races. It's pretty obvious we do this, but if anyone want's to debate about it with me, go right ahead.
Abortion

I retract what I said about citizenship, but that does not mean they are not human people. You could compare unborn babies to immigrants. If I kill a French immigrant, I would obviously go to prison because I killed someone. Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species. A living being's designation to a species is determined not by the stage of development but by the sum total of its biological characteristics. Killing people is wrong. There is no way around it. You can not say because it is someone's property that you can kill them. That is not how it works. It is not a religious premise, it is a moral premise that killing people is wrong. You can not justify the murder of an innocent human being. Sources: http://www.abortionfacts.com...