BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is False

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is false primary because of it's misunderstanding of The Big Bang, and logical fallacies which includes the idea that God existed when time, and space didn't exist (which is a scientific misconception by the way, but we'll get to that later. However we'll accept it for the sake of argument). This would violate the definition of existence itself which is something that is bound by the state of physical laws, and space and time. The way we tell if something exists is if it is detectable. In other words if it leaves a mark on the universe. That's how scientists found out that dark matter, and dark energy existed. In order for something to exist it needs a plane of existence, or a dimension of some sort to exist in. Without one nothing can exist. In our case it's the three-dimensional universe we find ourselves in. For those that are going to say he existed in heaven then that argument is fraud as well because if God created heaven then where was did he exist before he made heaven if he is the first thing to exist? Again in order for something to exist it first needs a plane of existence to exist in. Nothing can exist without a pre-existing plane. Well what about the universe then how did begin to exist before any pre-existing plane?" I'll get into that later.
If everything in the bible is true you still MUST reject it.

The Year is 2017, you decide to take an extended vacation to a remote area in the middle east, you are so sick of being a slave to your phone you and a group of 12 friends leave them behind. The people are largely illiterate but you do go through small towns, however they don't have any advanced technology. You run into Omar, it is said he was born of a virgin. He does all the miracles that Jesus did and you witnessed them all first hand, he is murdered raised from the dead, and ascends into heaven. Do you Worship Omar as the new Messiah? I would argue that no matter the miracles that the person performs, you still can not worship him as God. You still have to evaluate the argument the person made and the circumstances. A) Is God a megalomaniac? I would argue that demanding worship is, and that an omni-benevolent entity would not demand that they be worshiped. B) Why did God come in the form of a man to you in the remote area of the world while you were on vacation with no way to record the events accurately? It would make much more sense if his goal was to let his people know his will, to show up in the most educated densely populated areas of the world as the message would be recorded more accurately by more sources. C) Would you expect anyone to believe you when you went home and told them? or would they think you were crazy? how about 2000 years later when your written book was translated many times over and changed many times through the years? I would argue that the reason it is still believed is because it was a populist uprising that could not be put down, and so it was co-opted, by the church and then used to control the masses by religious rather than political power. D) After seeing Omar you wonder why he did not give you any great insights in which you could have added to your book in order to prove it was inspired by a higher order entity. If it was 2000 years ago, he could have informed you that the earth actually goes around the sun, that there are billions and billion of galaxies out there and we are but one, and so on and so forth. If you were to go back even 200 years you could include so much knowledge that has been learned that it would be easy to prove you have advanced knowledge of the future. Why did this not happen? In fact there are errors made that should not have been. E) If God wanted us to believe only what he said through Omar, why not then simply cut a mountain in half and inscribe His wishes on the side, in all languages present and future, as it would take no effort at all for an omnipotent being to do. F) Why have so many passage things in the bible that could be edited and would make it better? You could make a very strong argument that the bible is Blasphemy against God, as throughout the bible it puts human characteristics on Him, and in many cases makes him out to be a deranged psychopath. I will end there, but sorry Omar your argument was weak and therefore we must reject it, even though you did miraculous things.
know vs belief

Well, you mentioned 1+1= 2=know and 1+1=3=belief. Huh, tell me why is this symbol '1' called "one"? What does it represent? For example, in a standard map, a red dot represents a capital city of a state. So what does '1' represent? My worthy opponent, one could have drawn "one" as '2' as well, the symbol doesnt necessarily represent the number. Like we could have used the alphabet "c" for the "B" sound. Similarly, we can use the symbol"2" for two, and "3" for "three" . It could also be "3" for two and the vice cersa. However, we call "3" three, because it is on the basis of a belief that "3" is called three. It is not a universal fact*. Nowhere in the universe is it evident that a particular symbol is fixed for a particular entity. Our knowledge comes from assumption, which well, comes from beleif. That is because we assume" that 3 is three". So, both 1+1= 2 and 1+1=3 are a form a belief. (*-the earth rotates around the sun."
U vote for other person when I smarter

Ok here we go. Hi my name is carly ouellet. I hope u know this is a joke and that u r stupid has hell. U know why I'm smarter? Cause I'm carly. Wow that's a great defense. This isn't even a debate it's a joke dummyyyyyy. U know why I have a lower debate win ratio. Cause I act like this on all debates cause I love watching people throw temper tantrums. Bye bitchhh. Game. Set. Match
The Pledge of Allegiance should be required in schools of the U.S.A

I hold the BoP. Good luck to Con and thanks for accepting. Keep in mind, I (pro) am 13 years old, so I do not refer to 'minors' as if I were some crabby grandma who's just concerned about traditionalism. I am simply debating my point of view, which is that the Pledge is important. I also want to clear up a few assumptions which some people have about rules in education, such as that of speaking the Pledge of Allegiance being mandatory. Let the debating commence. Argument 1: Students can be entitled to rules; it does not violate freedom of speech. For example, the 2nd Amendment says that we have the right to bear arms. But are minors allowed? Thus, the Constitution is irrelevant to Con's standpoint. Argument 2: Not saying the Pledge of Allegiance shows disloyalty and immaturity. The contents of the Pledge should not go against belief systems of people of America, if they do, it is wrong. Argument 3: If stating the Pledge in American schools was mandatory, the students would be forced to contemplate the system behind our free country and it would hopefully help the kids remember the fallen soldiers and deceased leaders who previously fought for this wonderful nation. Some students take this freedom for granted; this law is something that would help kids make the most of every moment they have with good education and the freedom of belief. Argument 4: Saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school is professional and respectful. A lot of kids need rules whether it's because of their desire for structure or because they need discipline. Having the speaking of the Pledge obligatory would enrich their maturity, professionalism, and respect for each school day. Why? because of the contents of the Pledge which would produce positive effects no matter who they are. America deserves allegiance--even from the young people.
The Pledge of Allegiance should be required in schools of the U.S.A

I believe that the Pledge of Allegiance should be mandatory in schools that agree with the Pledge and that a rule such as this would not invalidate the Constitution. So I am debating those who oppose me, and I look forward to an interesting time. 1st Round acceptance. No further rules apply towards structure of debate. Simply present your arguments and rebuttals, and any forfeiture or fowl language results in loss for that debater.
Is golf asport

If your comparing Hogwarts (which is some made up thing in Harry Potter) then you shouldn't be in this debate. At least I am getting exercise instead of living in the fantasy world. . No one can fly, broom sticks are NOT magical, so get your head straight. Golf is considered a sport because there is physical exercise and the ability to play. It a hard sport to pick up on and be good at. If you think golf is just chasing after a white ball, and riding in a cart. then you are wrong. Why don't you go and play 18 holes, fast pace walking (NO CART ALLOWED), and then tell me how you feel. You might as well just quit now, because you will lose.
Is golf asport

Being a high school golfer, I get many people telling me that golf is not a sport because there is no physical activity. That is not true, We need to be in shape to walk the course while carrying our bags. Its not easy, especially when you are speed walking for four hours in extreme heat. Us golfers work out and have to watch what we eat. We can not eat unhealthy and go play golf afterwards. The definition of a sport is: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Which golf does apply. It takes skill, hard work and dedication to be good, just like any other sport. We compete against other schools, we have tournaments, and we work just as long and hard as any other sport on the planet.
Trolling should be illegal.

Vote Neg because the AFF is just ranting about trolling. Neg's counterplan: Agent: United States Federal Government Enforcement: Congress Funding: Taxpayer dollars Timeframe: right now Plan text: Only hate speech directed toward race, gender, or religion will have legal action. First of all, The AFF does not give any evidence of a higher law than the constitution and the first amendment. Second of all I would like to call topicality because the aff is excluding the neg from this debate by saying that trolling is any kind of provocative speech over the internet. Disadvantage 1: The videos listed with trolling provide income for many people famous or not. This will cause many youtubers to homeless because the AFF's ideas will cause this calamity. Disadvantage 2: The AFF's solvency will not work because the internet is too big. The AFF does not propose any law to actually solve the problem. And the AFF completely ignored the arguement of the neg that trolling can be alleged cheating in a video game.
Trolling should be illegal.

First of all, in the Freedom of Speech didn't say that you can say what ever you want. It's letting the people have the right to protest against the government laws the society doesn't like. In North Korea, there is no freedom of speech. Therefore if a North Korean citizen protested against the government laws, he or she will get executed. Not in the United States though. There is a difference between consequence-free speech and freedom of speech. Second of all, trolling is defined as," make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them." I was talking about this trolling, the most common type of trolling in the Internet. Last of all, if the AFF doesn't have a plan to stop trolling, I'm here to convince anyone to agree with me. Like how Gandhi wanted independence from India even though the British government didn't plan to make India free. His protests caused the British government to make India independent. Gandhi and I are using persuasion to start something or make someone else think the same point of view.
Trolling should be illegal.

First of all, this violates the first amendment or freedom of speech. The AFF does not clearly define trolling. The Neg's definition of trolling is repetitively killing someone on a video game. First of all, The AFF has no plan for stop trolling. Second the AFF does not define what kind of debate this is. Third there is not critieria. Vote neg to protect constitutional rights and to beat a troll at trolling
Trolling should be illegal.

Trolling should be illegal because it's actually bullying and it doesn't help our community at all. Trolling can destroy a young child's current and future life. Posting a kid raging on the Internet where anyone can access and watch the Youtube video can ruin our children's life. It affects their social life. Their friend can easily watch the Youtube video of them raging or being trolled that can easily reject the friendship between them. If the video gets popular enough, it can decrease the chances of the kid to make friends. His depression can lead to suicide and other extremely serious actions. His future career can be disrupted too. If the kid is applying for the job, there is a process where there is a person who will check if the person applying for this certain job is on the Internet. If so, it can lead to the kid on his adult period to not get the job that would support his life and family. It doesn't bring any positivism among our society. I know that the trolls are funny but the audience (people who are watching the video) can be affected. They would take an act of bullying funny and maybe send the kid messages of hate. It would make him feel depressed. Therefore that is the act of bully. Now I seen a lot of trolls against cheaters and hackers (a person who cheats with the use of programs or mods unfairly) and people say,"They deserved to be trolled" but trolling them and posting them on the Internet doesn't solve it. Here's why: It will be taken as revenge. If a hacker or cheater sees themselves on the Internet, they would take it as revenge and would want to boot or hack their account. It can also cause a huge emotional argument between each. They would always want to hit harder. Instead the "troll" should call an report to a enforcement team. Doing that should prevent emotional fighting among each other. One more thing I should point out, trolls like Minnesota Burns and LostInPlace are the large hypocrites because their saying that cheating is bad for the community but they don't realize that they are doing something that is more effective and emotional than simple cheating or hacking. Compare a person cheating that is ruining a game for everyone with someone who is affecting innocent kids' current time and the future of them in real life, leading to kids of serious actions such as suicide, and cause more emotional arguments that could be easily solved without threats a.k.a trolling. It looks like trolling is a lot worse than hacking or cheating. You can just leave a match if someone is cheating but in a troll, there is no escape. Trolling is causing problems for our society and it needs to stop.
Trolling should be illegal.

For my final argument, national laws on the Internet were created like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. I'm saying that online trolling should be outlawed in U.S and maybe could create a "Trolling" like Geneva Convention which is an international policy of war crimes. Instead it's about trolling and more to the people than the relationships between nations. The solution to stop online trolling is just creating a law for U.S and the Entire world banning trolling on the Internet. More specifically, banning the post of videos on trolling innocent people. It's quite understandable to figure out what the solution is. Laws are created to solve problems in the society. Now I give the REASONS why the U.S. should put a ban on trolling. That is why it says, "Trolling should be ILLEGAL." So my summary is this: There should be a policy for trolling in the U.S. and the Entire world because it is disrupting kids' current and future live and it doesn't solve ANY problems against hackers and cheaters. Now the solution of banning videos on Internet trolling should be like this,"Anybody who is caught Internet trolling will punished and arrested." The U.S. government would demand a ban on the video. A local court would take a online troll on a trial and anyone can talk against the court's decision.
Trolling should be illegal.

You have ignored the fact that you have given no solution. The AFF has no solvency whatsoever. Now to address the fact of trolling YouTube. You would literally would have to create a new industry for regulating this. Define innapropiate. Also the AFF has not a answered the Topicality. The AFF has excluded the neg from the debate by narrowing it down to YouTube videos. Back to the legal system. The AFF has has no plan to stop trolling in the U.S. The AFF also does not give a plan for the U.S let alone with the Entire world. Also The neg makes baseless claims in an attempt. The AFF also does not define whether this law is for the U.S or international law. One disadvantage with this plan is that This cannot happen as any law because the internet is international. A new industy would have to created.
Trolling should be illegal.

To be honest, I may have lost to the trolling on being offensive to someone but something more hurtful in today's world is another type of trolling usually on youtube in which I explained in on Round 1 and mostly what are the negative effects on what can it do to a innocent person's life. Now before I become attacked by people saying,"You just lost the debate" let me explain. Trolling by being offensive to others wasn't my main point. I mentioned it on Round 2 because when you said it violates the Freedom of Speech, it didn't seem like you understand WHAT TYPE of trolling. Trolling with the act of publishing videos is what I was mainly talking about. It's actually pretty understandable it is this type of trolling because: 1. It was in the category Entertainment because trolling with the use of publishing video are used for entertainment for other people to get a laugh and I'm saying that trolling like this is serious negative effects in our society. 2. There are many key words of this type of trolling on round 1. For example, "Youtube", "Video", "Minnesota Burns", "LostInPlace." I would have to say that the key words of Minnesota Burns and LostInPlace are OBVIOUS because this type of youtubers troll like this. Now if the Internet is "too" big, then why is the government of Arizona trying to ban trolling if it's too big or that the EU is trying to arrest people who internet troll. Now I am wanting for the US government to take in action and sooner or later there would be a international policy for stopping Internet trolling. Already other countries are taking in action and the United States and other nations should too. The youtube banning system isn't terrible and even if it was, it wouldn't matter that much. In our generation, youtube videos are having less and less inappropriate videos. A reason maybe for this is that the people should take in action. In case you didn't know, you can report a video that is inappropriate and violating online law. The reason that I'm debating about this is because that if I convince the government and the people that trolling is a terrible thing for our society, they would all report on trolling videos therefore making the banning system a lot stronger. Vote the AFF because trolling is a bad thing for our community and it is possible of non-legalizing it.
Trolling should be illegal.

As for the topicality. The AFF has excluded the neg by saying that any offensive word directed toward someone else should be banned by congress. And the AFF's solvency is incorrect because this cannot be done. The internet is simply too big to be controlled by any one country. Also this definition is subject to change. The First Amendment is part of the highest law of the land which is the constitution. To clarify, the Neg's plan does not allow ALL offensive speech directed at another individual as illegal but only directed toward race, gender, or religion etc. Making this illegal will burden our legal system more than it has already. And for the freedom of speech. Simply put, that is an article published on a website. NOT the highest law of the land. Therefore it is subject to change but the constitution will most likely be unchanged. The AFF's definition of thesis is also how it is cheating in this debate. This happened late in the debate and was not included in the 1AC therefore The neg could not have possibly countered this. A system of banning trolling videos would not work. YouTube already has a poor system of banning as it is. The AFF's plan will be a waste of money because the internet is too large. This will cost more money where it could be used instead for new innovations and more features being added to YouTube. Also, making it illegal to repetitively kill someone on a video game would be just like communism. The government has already proven incapable of regulating things such as healthcare. Obamacare is a good example of why the government should not regulate online interactions. The Obamacare website is a great of example of why they should not regulate online interactions. To conclude, The AFF has excluded the neg from the debate, shown no way how to solve this problem, and completely ignored the Neg's plan. Vote Neg because neg can become a reality and the AFF can't.
Trolling should be illegal.

According to uscourts.gov (a government controlled website), there is a list of what the Freedom of Speech does for the community. It lists what the freedom of speech includes the right of speech related actions. No where did it say that congress doesn't have the right to create laws that stop offensive communication to others. Also trolling is having an aim to make someone mad or receive an angry response. Offensive speech is one factor of Internet trolling. (Usually a random person being mean or aggressive to someone else.) Tricking or trolling without hate with the aim of getting someone else mad (Usually on youtube videos these days.) Your definition of trolling is,"repetitively killing someone on a video game." That type of action would make someone mad and full of rage. So congress banning trolling doesn't violate the US Constitution because offensive speech (one factor of Internet trolling) isn't protected by the freedom of speech because the freedom of speech is mostly for political purposes. The second factor of trolling is just harsh and emotional. This type of trolling causes little innocent kids to be posted on the Internet Trolling people on the Internet and posting them on the Internet to entertain other people can give you money. But they forgot one thing, they could have chosen a path in life that would be less emotional and cruel. They could have been a man and actually take courses to get a better job that wouldn't take other people's future career but they decide to take this path The laws of anti-troll-ism should have to ban videos on Internet trolling being posted on the Internet. Therefore, if one troll video gets popular enough, there should be a ban on the video to prevent the destruction of other people's future career. Last of all, you barely have support against anti-troll-ism. Most of the time, you tell me what my mistakes are in my argument. You didn't tell me why trolling violates the freedom of speech. Doing this would make you a hypocrite. You say that I should prove my answers better when you don't even have a strong thesis. This is the first time of starting a argument and I don't know completely what to say and do. What does the freedom of speech mean link: http://www.uscourts.gov...