BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An omni-god can avoid the problem of evil

If god is all powerful it was within his power to acheive this good by other means. Since god is all knowing he would know we percieve these means as evils and people would suffer. To make people suffer fo this, makes him less then all loving being he could have acheived it in a way that wouldn't have caused this. Again, I bring up his omniscience and omnipotence. I believe our universe being the best of all possible alternatives is inherent in my opponents argument since he postulated a god that created the universe and omniscience and omnipotence are two of three necessary conditions in order to call him god. Since the best of all possible universes is inherent in my opponents argument and we are here to discuss the universe we come up with: P1. This is the best of all possible universes P2. Our existence is evident since we are here to discuss these issues C. Therefore we live in the best of all possible universes I still maintain that his omniscience and his infinite love do not breakdown due to people's suffering for 2 reasons: 1. My opponent is giving his god a false alternative either "people suffer and he is not all loving" or "people do not suffer and he is all loving" the suffering of people can be brought about by many other things besides god. The freewill of men is a substantial part of human suffering. This may give off the illusion that god is either "sterile and benevolent" or "god is malevolent and all powerful" since freewill is responsible for such things as the holocaust and child rape. However, we know god's sterility not to be true if freewill is factored in because the power to do ultimate evil and ultimate good is a necessity of freewill. My opponent can come back and argue that the god of the bible ordered the mass genocide of opposing tribes but I remind him that he has not brought up the god of the bible only a hypothetical that he has postulated. 2. Freewill is a testament to god's infinite love since he lets us choose wether we want to love him or not. This does not limit his power since even we with a limited perspective we can see that this is overall a good thing because we are not at the mercy of a tyrant who abuses his power. So ultimately a being that has infinite power and does not abuse it can be defined as just which we define as good. Since it takes an infinite amount of justice not abuse and infinite amount of power and just is defined as being good then god is infinitely good.
An omni-god can avoid the problem of evil

Premise 1: if god created the universe and he is all knowing then finite beings can not possibly be aware of all evils and all goods within their limited scope of knowledge. Since god has an unlimited scope of time through which he can observe his creation what we perceive as evil at the time may actually turn out to be good.If god is all powerful it was within his power to acheive this good by other means. Since god is all knowing he would know we percieve these means as evils and people would suffer. To make people suffer fo this, makes him less then all loving being he could have acheived it in a way that wouldn't have caused this. Premise 2: His plan involves what we perceive to be some evil although within the context of eternity this seems trivial especially since an eternity that is filled with bliss and god's love outweighs any finite amount of evil that a human being may endure within the limited scope of his or her life. So some evil is outweighed by infinite love.Again this limits gods power, it makes it as if god could not acheive this plan by any other means. He is all powerful so other means are possible. Any evil he does makes it impossible to reach all loving as evil is the opposite of good or loving. Therefore he can never reach the status of all. He would also be aware since he knows all of the perception of these evils, and to make someone feel the amount of suffering a child feels if they are raped, or a holocaust victim would have felt is not loving, being in gods knowledge he would have known that the humans experiencing this only had a limited perspective on this so it would make the suffering seem very bad to them. Premise 3: If god is all powerful then this has to be the best of all possible universesSo in this premise we are suppose to limit gods power yet say he is all powerful. You know this isnt true, as long as you agree a world without child rape or the holocaust would be a better universeso in known of these premises does god reach all 3 levels of all loving, all powerful, and all knowing.
An omni-god can avoid the problem of evil

Premise 1: if god created the universe and he is all knowing then finite beings can not possibly be aware of all evils and all goods within their limited scope of knowledge. Since god has an unlimited scope of time through which he can observe his creation what we perceive as evil at the time may actually turn out to be good. Premise 2: His plan involves what we perceive to be some evil although within the context of eternity this seems trivial especially since an eternity that is filled with bliss and god's love outweighs any finite amount of evil that a human being may endure within the limited scope of his or her life. So some evil is outweighed by infinite love. Premise 3: If god is all powerful then this has to be the best of all possible universes Thus, when looked at in this context god can be all loving, all knowing, and all powerful
An omni-god can avoid the problem of evil

First we must define an omni-god, he is all loving or good, all powerful, and all knowing. This god is also the creator of the universe.Problem of evil basically If God is all-good, he would destroy evil.If God is all-powerful, he could destroy evil.But evil is not destroyed.Therefore, such a God (all-good and all-powerful) does not exist.My opponent wll have to come up with a solution that does not limit gods power, goodness,or knowledge. He/she can start in the 1st round but will not be able to add new in the 3rd round, my opponent should just respond with close or end.
should we have balls or not

We should have balls. They help regulate the temperature of sperm, keeping them at an appropriate temperature to be fertile. The balls hang outside of the body to keep the speed cooler. When it is cold out side they shrivel up to warm the sperm, when hot outside they hang lower in an attempt to be cooler. Without balls, we'd all be infertile, so we do need them. Thanks http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
Transgenders Should be Accepted as Boy Scouts

Boy Scouts are now accepting transgenders who identify as male into the program. This has been highly criticized as many agree that transgender boys are girls who think they are boys. I believe that this is false. As a supporter of and part of the BSA, I believe that it is our duty to be open to people. The people we accept must identify as boys and technically transgender boys count as boys but were girls. Humans are not perfect as ethics are not and I understand why people believe that but have any of them been transgender. If some have, I will accept their argument because they know what it is like to undergo that transformation but if not, to everyone that believes that it should not be, a solid assumption can be made that you are saying these things because transgender people are different . They are different from you and most people in the world, they are that 0.3 percent of people that are different than you. They must have a hard time changing genders and not understanding what gender defines them so as Boy Scouts, we should be there to accept them into something different. Our law is to be Trustworthy,Loyal,Helpful,Friendly,Courteous,Kind,Obedient,Cheerful,Thrifty,Brave,Clean,and Reverent. See the ones that make it our duty to include people who qualify as boys. Thank you for reading.
gays should be allowed to marry

Firstly I would quote something my opponent has said "If you answer yes, I ask you what is the next step, Censorship? Lynch mob anyone who is gay? or should we just deport them? We must stop the slippery slope at the beginning and for all these reasons I urge a strong affirmation on the idea that gays should be allowed the right to marry." I would like to say right now that I do not hold any negative feelings towards someone who is gay. I simply do not think they should marry. "Further more who are we as human beings to say what one can and can not love. Who are we as humans to say one is wrong in their beliefs and therefore I will take away your rights." To this I say that I love my family. And guess what? I have brothers and a father. I would even say that I love many people who are both male and female. I've even loved the pets I've had.(including my non living pet rock I had!) So I'm not deciding what it is for you to love. Now let me make some more points. For as long as I can remember a marriage makes two people husband and wife. This has been this way for literally ages. Humans made marriage To be between a male and a female. By participating in marriage a male becomes a husband and a female becomes a wife. So marriage has always been between a male and a female. Having said this I do believe in improvement and change. But lets also look at something else. Males and females are DIFFERENT! we have physical differences between us and marriage was created to officially pair the two together. Marriage IS the joining of a Male and FEMALE. In my opinion gays who pair off should be given the same legal rights as that of those married.(inversely those who are not married and of different sex should also be able to get these) But it IS NOT marriage. On another note humans developed marriage AND THEN gave special privileges to those who were married. In my opinion gays that pair off should be given the same rights and privileges but should not be married. That is the distinct difference I am implying. Give them the rights but don't marry them.
gays should be allowed to marry

My opponent's entire case revolves around some mysterious definition that he appears to have plucked out of mid-air, to offer a counter definition I offer from the Princeton word-net dictionary: Marriage: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union" two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love" the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel" a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas" Thus we see that all definitions of marriage point to a a union between two individuals or a couple. It is never actually stated that they must be a male or female. Further more who are we as human beings to say what one can and can not love. Who are we as humans to say one is wrong in their beliefs and therefore I will take away your rights. Gay marriage is to be allowed simply because two individuals should not be forbidden the right that is offered to other people who are in a committed relationship. Personally, when we have about a 50% divorce rate I really think it might be a good thing to try something that might be new. I mean hey, we might actually get people who want to stay married =]. Further more marriage offers benefits to couples that before would not be entitled to such extras and privileges. If we deny these benefits we are being selective and oppressive. Thus as of right now, not only does my opponent lack an argument because his definition has been nullified, however he must also refute all of my arguments to win this debate. In the big picture one must ask this simple question, should we take the first step? Deny gay marriage? If you answer yes, I ask you what is the next step, Censorship? Lynch mob anyone who is gay? or should we just deport them? We must stop the slippery slope at the beginning and for all these reasons I urge a strong affirmation on the idea that gays should be allowed the right to marry.
The Sons of Solidarity

Your group believes in eugenics, and discrimination against the mentally ill. You out right believe that any kind of disabled individual is "lesser". Remember people, if you’re looking for a group supporting equality it isn't here. Pro here also believes in the forced sterilization of lgbt people. My proof is right here: http://www.debate.org... Although you are known for accusing the Brotherhood of being Nazis, besides the racism you seem to agree with Nazis. Now I am in the opinion that Hitler, no matter how horrible he is did do some good in his life, but it doesn't change the irony shown. Though America before the Nazis did it was supportive of eugenics, Nazis are known for it and the killing of disabled people. The Nazis actually were very supportive of women’s rights to, Hitler you see, was very fond of his mother. Now your opinion is that the disabled and mentally ill have nothing to give society but that is not true, the world would be so much duller without downs syndrome for instance. And just about every genius in human history was autistic. Many successful people battle depression, in fact almost all have at some point. As a person I do not like Stephen Hawking but he is physically disabled and has accomplished more then you could. You forget that disabilities, at least the inherited ones exist for a reason. They tend to have good even if you cannot see it, and even if there is no good, a person can and will have other strengths in life. Just like the old have much yet to offer. That ideal of theirs I cannot help but bring to light because of my own things. Directly from my profile: "I'm autistic, along with: ODD (perfect for this site, right?), OCD, PTSD, anxiety, Essential tremor, dyspraxia, particularly extreme SPD, I have motor delays and balance problems, my depth perception is off, I have memory problems and face blindness, and so much more!"So, if you are for LGBT rights (I am not, but the Leben itself doesn't care, and I'm not THAT against it), for disabled rights, religious and for any rights for the mentally ill, this group isn't for you. For the Leben you need only to be against the death penalty, Pro life, and against euthanasia. You are still allowed to join if you disagree with one, if you challange me to a debate on it.
The Sons of Solidarity

Your groups blatent disrespect for mentally ill is very apperent.Beyond your groups disrespect for those with religious beliefs on this site and otherwise, The Sons of Solidarity discriminate against the 18.2 percent of Americans dealing with some kind of mental illness."At The Sons of Solidarity we are only recruiting sound mind individuals with strong will and desire and have no room for people that do not possess a sound mind." This quote shows a wrong, and for many insulting belief that the mentally ill don't have a strong will. For many their will is what keeps them alive every day and going.The idea of anyones faith being akin to Santa Clause, is a direct insult to what many people spend their life on, even if you do not personally. That attacks what is considered to be 86 percent of the american population, though I have doubts that this percentage is true.Pro choice was categorized under, "a lack of respect for the idea of life itself."Much of what your group belives goes aganist this idea, "- believe in equality in society"If you want true equality in all forms, The Sons of Solidarity does not exhibit that idea at all.The Leben does not care if any of it's members have or do not have religious fath, we only care if an individual agrees with the core values, Pro life, anti euthanasia, and anti death penalty.
The Sons of Solidarity

I would like to take the time to welcome The Leben to this round table debate on our group. To clarify one of our mission statements, "All people are treated equal and there is no discrimination with the races" This is a true statement. Now to address the Religion aspect, Religion is a state of mind of belief in something that is greater then human kind. Since there is no such thing, people who are religious are most likely mentally ill or weak minded and use religion as a crutch to cope. At The Sons of Solidarity we are only recruiting sound mind individuals with strong will and desire and have no room for people that do not possess a sound mind. Even though some of our members might believe in some sort of religion, this is not encouraged by The Sons of Solidarity. Our goal is to have a healthy mind type group that can debate topics logically and not make any reference to religion which is a delusional fairy tale such as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Pro choice of our members has nothing to do with religion, this is strictly pro choice to abortions/birth/life. A woman is entitled to pro choice during a pregnancy, it is her body and no organization will be allowed to dictate how she will proceed with her life. That is why we are pro choice. As I mentioned before we will be releasing a 10 amendment constitution of The Sons of Solidarity. In it there will not be any mention of Religion or Communism. These are not recognized by The Sons of Solidarity. If you are of sound mind - believe in science not religion - believe in equality in society - believe in women's rights - believe in justice over greed Then you will want to join The Sons of Solidarity, as The Leben is a religious zealots group, and The Brotherhood is skin head Nazi's. Therefore if you want good in this world and fairness and justice go with The Sons of Solidarity Now I pass the mic to my opponent The Leben President
The Sons of Solidarity

As the current leader and ambassador of the Leben I will argue why people should not join the Sons of Solidarity. Both of these rules are contradictory to "All members must be of sound mind, mental illness and religious views will not be tolerated and those members will be expelled.." "- everyone is equal, there is no discrimination in the races or genders - to uphold free speech but not hate speech against any other races, genders" Which shows the ableist and anti freedom of religion views of this group. Hate speech is particularly apparent in the idea of discriminating against the mentally ill. These two show a lack of respect for the idea of life itself. "Pro Choice -For the Death Penalty" They are against the second amendment, true freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to life. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are against the death penalty, against abortion, and against euthanasia consider the Leben. If you disagree with one of these you may still join if you debate me on the area of disagreement.
The Sons of Solidarity

The Sons of Solidarity is a new group starting to provide competition to The Leben, The Alliance, and The Brotherhood. As the President of The Sons of Solidarity I would like to take the time to provide my platform for new members that want to join The Sons of Solidarity. The Sons of Solidarity key points are - everyone is equal, there is no discrimination in the races or genders - to uphold free speech but not hate speech against any other races, genders - Pro Choice - For the Death Penalty - Anti gun laws - Anti Religion - anti Communism All members must be of sound mind, mental illness and religious views will not be tolerated and those members will be expelled. The Sons of Solidarity neither promotes or encourages any violence by members of it's group.
Is it better to be a criminal or an honest good person

Although most criminals do end up dead or in jail, they live the life of luxury and do not have to engage in the grind of everyday work life such as traffic jams getting to work, the 9-5 hours and the boredom of every day life such as discussing the weather around the cooler at work or chatting with neighbors about your lawn. Criminals live somewhat exiting lives with the law breathing down their necks. It's not for the faint hearted but it's exciting and stressful with turf wars and other criminals competing with you. But if you want to look at it from the financial side, criminals can make millions of dollars, buy all they toys they want and get all the women/men they want and have all the material things that most people can only imagine to have. I would also like to point out that there are many white collar criminals who live lavish lives thanks to fraud, pyramid schemes and corporate scams. Just look at Bernie Maydoff, how many mansions and cars did he have. Sure he is in jail now but he lived a pretty lavish life for a while and with the champagne and caviar and women he got to live like a king even if it didn't last forever. The problem is criminals do not know when to walk away. Just make your millions and retire from crime while the honest person works their tedious job for 40 years so they can retire on a measly little pension. The criminal is the one with the mansion the fancy cars and the freedom to do what they like, while the honest person can only say "I did the right thing" and I'm still struggling to make ends meet
Is it better to be a criminal or an honest good person

I will be arguing the side of that it's better to be in society as a good, honest person. This argument is very heavily based off on morals, depending on whether the morals of the person force them to think of a life of thievery and crime or a life of honest work. One of the major negatives to becoming such a person, is that often it is short term. Often, to become the kingpin of a criminal enterprise, you have to risk it all and hold onto your wealth perilously, being able to lose it all with the slightest misfortune. The 20 wealthiest criminals, even though had held onto fame and fortune for the longest amount of time relatively, had almost all ended up in jail or death. With the government breathing down on you, it's close to impossible to be able to hold onto all of your immense wealth to be able to use it in the future.
Is it better to be a criminal or an honest good person

In today's capitalistic society most success is measured by the amount of fortune or money a person possesses. I'm going to argue for being a criminal. Criminals are the ones with the big mansions, the fancy Ferrari cars and all the best dinner locations, women, parties, jewellery , while the honest hard working person gets by with barely making ends meet unless you are Bill Gates, most people have to work very hard and they will never live in a mansion or drive a Ferrari. If I'm a big criminal, I can have anything I want, so what, that the law is after me and I might not sleep good at night, with some highly paid lawyers I will get off and live the dream, while the honest person will just have to settle on the fact that they don't have a guilty conscience.
Celestia is a terrible ruler

Princess Celestia from MLP:FIMThis debate should be clear enough in the topic. While it is meant to be a fun, debate about a non-serious topic, it is not a troll debate and actual arguments from the show will be used to rationally defend the resolution.FULL RESOLUTION: Princess Celestia, from MLP:FIM has shown to be an ineffective leader of EquestriaThe BOP will be on me to show that she has been an ineffective leader.The heart of the debate should be clear, but if anyone has any questions regarding what that is, please ask in the comments. Any attempts to bypass the heart of the debate with semantics or other underhanded or manipulative tactics should be treated as forfeits.Thank you.