BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia should be legal

Question: What if you are suffering the worst illness, with no cure. Would you want the choice to die? You don't have to die, say, if you believe in preserving life, but don't you want the option? Do you think it's fair to those who don't believe in preserving life to be forced to live? Why do you, a citizen of a country in which freedom is greatly valued, want to be restricted to only one option? Answer these questions with a convincing answer other than, "God chooses when we die" and I will be thoroughly impressed.
Is equality a good objective

Can there ever be equality of the human condition or equality of outcome between humans, I don't believe that its possible to achieve equality by government fiat/ Legislation, as every human being is different from every other individual and some are in-capable of reaching a level of equality with their fellow human being. This doesn't mean that those who can't reach the same level of equality with others are being treated unfairly by society, it only indicates that some humans by nature and fate, have limited capabilities. Abraham Lincoln wrote this about his thoughts on equality," You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
If You're Right, You Can Convince Me of Your Side

You present a good, enlightening argument. Your argument, however, rests on some questionable implicit assumptions. First of all, you implicitly assume traveling to the box can not be done in sufficient time. This assumption may ultimately be false. Quantum mechanical concepts including quantum entanglement could allow for traveling to the box in sufficient time or even for simply obtaining the information of what is in the box in sufficient time. Second, you implicitly assume the content of the box will not be in the box forever. This assumption may also be false. The content of the box may be perfectly preserved forever unless some change in its environment will occur. Third, you implicitly assume a guess can be a claim. This assumption may be false. My opening argument suggests your experiences and knowledge come into play in forming your position on the claim. Your position thus does not seem to be a guess. It's a belief you yourself have justified.
If You're Right, You Can Convince Me of Your Side

Suppose there is a box on the other end of the universe and it is known that in this box is either an hourglass or an apple. If we were to attempt to travel to this box, its contents would be long destroyed beyond recognition by the time we got there. I claim it contains an apple and I am correct. I have no way to convince you of the correctness of my claim. Because my claim is ultimately a guess and the contents of the box can never be explored, there is no evidence that my claim is correct. But my claim is correct because I guessed correctly. Your resolutional claim in defeated in the case that I make a claim which is (a) a guess, (b) not checkable and (c) correct.
All drugs should be legal

All drugs should be legalised, When the USA started the war on drugs they wasted millions of dollars into something which in the long term has not payed off and has actually increased numbers of drug related deaths and drug usage. Portugal used to have a drug problem but after legalising all drugs the death and OD rate went down. If people have a right to do whatever they want with their own bodies then why should drugs be illegal. Drugs are at the core of it a health issue not a criminal issue.
Resolved: An omnipotent and andomniscient god cannot logically exist.

Static Time There are two points to the link I provided: We perceive time to be constant because we’re in space/time so as it’s expanding so is our perception of it (to put it in simple terms). True time would in fact be constant, only our perception of it would be changing because space is expanding. We haven’t discussed this, but I would presume that god would be ticking in true time, so to him time would be truly constant. Free Will Being able to make correct predictions is different from knowing the actual outcome. In your example, you made a correct prediction but you never really knew with 100% certainty that I would not jump. If I was crazy and I jumped, your prediction would have been wrong. Your prediction had a degree of uncertainty, while god’s knowledge would have no uncertainty which is why we label it as omniscience. We wouldn’t label anybody omniscient simply because they can make correct predictions with a high degree of certainty. I think it makes sense to also understand the term free will: “’Free Will’ is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.”[1] If an omniscient being created another being that has free will, then the being would have to have various alternatives to choose from. However, given that the omniscient being knows what the actual outcome happens to be, it makes those alternatives nothing more than an illusion. Having Power vs Exercising Power Note that the colloquial definition of power is somewhat weak and inconclusive: it doesn’t address ability or opportunity. So I would suggest a stronger definition, provided by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Power should be distinguished from ability. Power is ability plus opportunity: a being which has maximal ability but which is prevented by circumstances from exercising those abilities would not be omnipotent. Nothing could prevent an omnipotent agent from exercising its powers, if it were to endeavor to do so.” [2] So having the power also implies that the being has the opportunity and the ability to exercise it, by definition! Having omniscience eliminates the opportunity to exercise the power: if I know what I will do in every moment in the future, then where is my opportunity to do something else? Conclusion Omnipotence is defined as the maximum power logically possible and based on the definition in SEP: power is the ability plus the opportunity. An omniscient being would know, not merely predict with a high degree of certainty, what it would do every moment in the future, thus eliminating the opportunity to exercise its power. If the opportunity is eliminated, then the power is also eliminated. This is why a being that is both omniscient and omnipotent is a paradox, therefore such a being cannot logically exist. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Resolved: An omnipotent and andomniscient god cannot logically exist.

Time has to be Static The only problem the link presented was it was a problem because in “commoving time” the stop watch would appear to be ticking faster as the universe expands. But this is not a problem because to our perception and the perception of our watches which exist within….well reality as we know it in time at its current ….ticking speed I guess, we would not notice the change in the ticking of any clock unless we watched it from outside of the Universe. Let me explain, consider you are watching Kid Flash speed read through a Library every single book. But he is reading, at a faster speed of time, cause well he’s special like that. To Him He can see every book move and all the food he has left lying around in his study, he can see himself and he can see you standing there like a statue. You cant see him though. He’s moving so fast because he runs on a different rate of time that even light stuck going at your rate of time does not show you him or the food and books he cleaned up and put back on the shelf faster than your time could register them. So in short even if the clock would tick faster as space expands you would perceive it faster, like when you’re staring at a fan and your eyes try following the fan blades. Free will and Omni paradox. I’ve heard this argument and it can lead to some pretty absurd statements. For example lets say I tell you to jump off a roof and flap your wings you will fly. You say you don’t believe and are not going to do it. I knew you would say that of course cause there’s not way your that gullible and stupid. Does this show because I had the foreknowledge of what your choice would be that had control over it the whole time, that I made your decision for you? Of course not, my knowledge over your actions does not affect the fact that you independently make them apart from me. God would have to fulfill all ‘what if’s’ to maintain Omnipotence Why would he? In order to logically have power it has to be used? That is absurd and if you take a minute to consider what that means on a non-omni level of power you would see this if you just use common sense. For example is it safe to say that Chuck Norris can kick my butt? Pretty safe I think we would agree, however he is not kicking my but (obviously I would not be able to type if he did) and he is not roundhouse kicking your right now is he? Has he ever done so. The man is a wealthy celebrity and has no need of turning his attention to your or I and has no causes that would make him show off his fighting prowess by attacking us. So he is not, but clearly you cant say that he CANT kick our butts if you know push came to shove for Mr. Norris. Thing is with an Omnipotent God by definition ‘push’ cannot possibly come to shove. And even if he did have too there is still know problem. There’s no logical reason to say that god has not fulfilled all ‘what-ifs’ and created Hilbert’s Hotel in the form of infinite realities.
Resolved: An omnipotent and andomniscient god cannot logically exist.

Opponent S1: "But the flow of events in the timeline being something that is not static and subject to change, means God could very well change that fact that it will rain tomorrow. It does not change the fact that he knew it was going to rain even though he ensured with his power that it wouldn’t after I prayed ‘rain rain go away so I can cut the hay today’ to him." Response: I'm not sure I agree with my opponent's definition of time, i.e. time being in "flux", which my opponent bases on a common misunderstanding that time is expanding. For a scientific explanation as to why space is expanding but time is constant see this article: http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com... . Perhaps my opponent means that time is relative [1] (to the observers); however, that does not have a bearing on the paradox. God would in fact know that you would pray for the rain to go away, he would also know that he was going to make it rain tomorrow. If god does fulfill your prayer, then we're back at the paradox: god has just exercised his omnipotence and thus negated his omniscience. This also brings up another issue: if god is omnipotent then he can make a person with free will. If the person has free will, but god knows everything that the given person going to do in the future then it's not really free will. Either god is omnipotent and can make a person with free will or god is not omniscient. The paradox remains! Opponent S2: "I say this because it means while we only can know that it did not rain today, God is able to know with certainty about the rain that never happened…but could have." Response: That only addresses god's omniscience, the moment that god enacts his omnipotence then the paradox occurs. In order for god not to contradict his omniscience, god would have to enact ALL of the "what if's" at the same time and arguably there are an infinite number of "what if's". This goes into yet another paradox and that is the paradox of infinity (Hilbert's Hotel) [2]. Again, making yet another contradiction. Conclusion: The expansion of time and space has led my opponent to a common misunderstanding that time is expanding along with space [3], so my opponent's conclusion has succumbed to this common error. My opponent has only shown that god's omniscience allows god to know about all of the possible "what if's," but this only makes the problem worse since god would have to fulfill an infinite number of what if's to maintain omnipotentence. That results in yet another paradox, the paradox of Hilbert's Hotel, which makes an omnipotent and omniscient god logically impossible. [1] http://csep10.phys.utk.edu... [2] http://www.suitcaseofdreams.net... [3] http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com...
Resolved: An omnipotent and andomniscient god cannot logically exist.

Because Time is also considered to be a part of space (space-time continuum) its not rational to think of Time is static terms either. Knowing about a Time in FluxLet us say God knows it’s going to rain tomorrow. Because of his power he can control weather or not it will rain, but as of right now its going to rain. But the flow of events in the timeline being something that is not static and subject to change, means God could very well change that fact that it will rain tomorrow. It does not change the fact that he knew it was going to rain even though he ensured with his power that it wouldn’t after I prayed ‘rain rain go away so I can cut the hay today’ to him. So really when you think about it this highlights the fact that he knows everything, it doesn’t bring it into question. I say this because it means while we only can know that it did not rain today, God is able to know with certainty about the rain that never happened…. but could have. God does not only know about the ‘what is’s but he knows about the ‘what if’s in detail. Conclusion:1) The logic impossibility relies on the assumption that time is static.2) We generally take Time and Space to be in FluxI await my opponent’s response
Resolved: An omnipotent and andomniscient god cannot logically exist.

Resolved: An omnipotent and and omniscient god cannot logically exist.DefinitionsDictionary definition of Omnipotent:om·nip·o·tent   [om-nip-uh-tuhnt] adjective1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.2. having very great or unlimited authority or power. The apologists often define omnipotence as the maximum power logically possible (i.e. god does not have the power to create a square circle, since a square circle is not logical).Dictionary definition of Omniscience:om·nis·cient   [om-nish-uhnt] adjective1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. Argument"The omnipotence and omniscience paradox can be summed up as 'Does God know what he's going to do tomorrow? If so, could he do something else?' If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent."Source: http://wiki.ironchariots.org... ConclusionIt's logically impossible for god to know what he's going to do in the future (omniscient) and have the power to change it (omnipotent); therefore, an omnipotent and omnisciet god cannot logically exist.
Resolved: An omnipotent and andomniscient god cannot logically exist.

Exercising Power A: you did not actual address my specific charge. It was not about questioning if God had to have opportunity in order to say he has power, it was he has to flat out use the power to say he has power. You suggested God ‘had’ to do something (create all versions of Schrodinger cat) to have power. He does not. Just because he can do it by opportunity and ability does not mean he has too. I have the ability and opportunity to forfeit this debate but I obviously have not does that mean that I never could have? Of course not. B: You did not address my point that God may in fact already made all the what-ifs so the voters should consider this point dropped. Just because you do not exist in the universe where I am dating Britt Nicole does not mean that universe does not exist. You can’t logically say god did not make it apart and separate from our own reality and so you can’t logically hold against god what you logically cannot say if he did or did not do it. Free Will Exercise in Character over Power Existence of Free Will does not mean God ‘lacks opportunity’ to make us do his will as Gods restraint in power reflects his character not his opportunity. 100% certainty So it’s just a matter of degree of certainty? Fine then let’s just say I do know 100% does that now mean that it was really I who made your choice for you? No it’s not the degree of certainty that keeps us from labeling me Omnipotent when I make a prediction on your choices. It’s the common sense that’s there’s a disconnect between my good understanding of people and situations from the people and the situations themselves. Choices are an illusion if God knows… Let’s consider a choice without Gods foreknowledge in the equation for a moment. I have to pick between 2 jobs. Job A is closer than B and so I pick it. Add Foreknowledge back to the equation; is my choice any less my own? No because all the same causes are still in place True Time You and your link have made a backwards conclusions. True Time would be what changes and our perception of it would remain the same so since we are constrained by time. To keep the speed equation the same True Time has to change with True Space to keep the ratio the same or our ability to calculate speed falls apart. Conclusion Though I have refuted your every argument; lets say they were not quite good enough and we give more weight to every point you have tried to make. If we take your case at its face value at the end of the day all you have done is made a slightly more elaborate ‘stone so big…’ argument which is ruled out by your own round one definition. Omnipotence thus been proven to logically have to mean a more Calvinistic view of God but not ‘no such god can logically exist’.
Suicide should be legal.

But to get down to business first I will defend against my opponent's attacks and the give reasons why it should be illegal. Before this gets started it dose matter if my opponent proves that it is illogical for suicide to be illegal because his burden of proof requires that he proves why it should be 1. First my opponent claims that there is no why to punish those who commit suicide but if we look to history we can see that there some punishment for suicide included: loss of estate and defacing the body. So there ways to punish a person after the act of suicide. Finally on this point even if there was no way to punish people who have committed suicide this still gives no reason why it should be illegal 2. Then my opponent claims that suicides have no effects on other people but in reality on average suicides affect 6 people and with there being 32000 suicides a year this means that every year suicides will effect 192000 people just in the US. . http://www.suicidology.org.... Thus suicide should be illegal in order to protect people from the emotional damage it has on people thus meeting what my opponent claims is the point of laws in order to protect people from harm. 3. Then my opponent claims that people should have the right to their body and use a example of trashing there room, but you can cross apply my #2 argument that because of the emotional damage. The example my opponent gives dose not apply because there are no effects of trashing your room while there are effect of committing suicide. Secondly there are economic effects of suicide as well; suicides cost 25 billion dollars every year. . http://www.cdc.gov... Now for some reasons why suicide should be illegal. 1. Most suicides are cause because of short low points in a person's life, so this means that not every suicide is committed by people who are a 100% percent sure they want the out come and by making suicide illegal we may be able to persuade people to do otherwise. By having suicide being illegal we can hope to save lives. 2. By making suicide illegal you reduce the chance that suicides will be used as an act of war. As we see in World War 2 with the kamikaze and now in the Middle East with suicide bombings that if these act were looked down upon that would not be used to do kill to thousands of people.
Suicide should be legal.

Unfortunately, this topic seems to me a bit harder to argue from my opponent's stance than my own, but I have faith that he will find some way to do it. Now, I will begin by defining some key terms. Suicide: the action of killing oneself intentionally. (source: Oxford) Legal: permitted by law. (source: Oxford) Based on these definitions, which are the most context relevant and apparent ones, suicide would have to be specifically prohibited by law to not be legal. Anything that is not prohibited is permitted; anything that is not illegal is legal. If my opponent wishes to use different definitions, I ask that he provides good reason for why his make more sense in this context. And so we come to the main point I will be upholding, at least for this round: there is no good reasoning by which suicide should be made illegal. I shall now back up my assertion with some key facts. First, there is no way for the law to punish someone after they have committed suicide. Therefore, making it illegal is rather frivolous, and such ridiculous legislation throws shame upon the whole system. There is no way to punish people who commit suicide, so it is rather impossible to make it illegal in any meaningful way. Keep in mind here that we are not debating whether or not _attempted_ suicide should be legal, as that's a completely different beast. I would be ready to argue for its legality, but I do not seek to throw this debate on a meaningless tangent. Next, there is no victim on whose behalf punishment might be given, even if it were possible. In the same way that scraping one's own knee isn't and shouldn't be illegal, neither should completely killing oneself. Laws are meant to protect us from unfair harm, but there is no unfairness in harm that is sought out. Lastly, for now, a person should be in control of his or her own body. Just as a person can trash their own house without legal repercussions, so too should he or she be able to trash his or her own body, even to the point of death. As a summary thus far: Premise: There is no good basis for making legislation against suicide. Warranting Statement 1: There is no punishment the government can give to a person after death. Warranting Statement 2: There is no "victim," as the only person who directly loses out has consented to the deed. Warranting Statement 3: A person should be allowed to do whatever they wish to their own body, as with their own property. And with that, it's off to my opponent.
Oil Companies

Assuuming you are not interested in disposing of all of the things brought to you thanks to the evil oil compaines, and you won't be riding around on a hourse like the Amaish, I must say there are other things to me more concerned about than the evil oil companes...like the evil that comes out of your own heart. Every thought of unrighteousness is the same as committing the unrighteous act, and it is sin which separates you from God. We die becaues we are sinners and we deserve to die. If you don't get asved from sin and death, you won't be allowed into heaven and there is only one place for sinners to go. You probably don't want to be saved, do you? If you do, I can tell you how you can be saved from Hell by God and you can be sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven.: or am I missing something and you are already saved but you want to talk about the oil companies for than about how important it is to be saved?