BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God and Hell cannot simultaneously exist (take 2)

Ok if my first argument was short, then I will take your responses and answer them separately. 1) You said that if God is morally perfect the He has the desire to send everyone to Heaven. And yes I did agree with you on that. But I will say that just because a being has the power to do something does not necessarily mean they will do it. Any being has the desire to do a lot of things for themselves and even others. Just because someone has the desire to do something does not mean they will do it. Yes, God has the power and the desire for everyone to go to Heaven. But we as people have to take certain steps in order to be able to enter Heaven. There is no getting around it. I could sit here and get into a huge discussion about the Bible and what God says we have to do in order to be able to enter Heaven, but there is not enough space nor time. To narrow it down, we have to accept that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins and we have to accept him in our hearts as our Lord and savior. If you don't do that in your lifetime, then you will go to Hell, and that is the honest truth. 2) There is a world because we were all created by God to worship Him. It clearly states in the Bible that if we as his creation does not worship Him, He will make the rocks cry out and worship Him. That is why there is a world. 3) Just because someone lives poor does not necessarily mean they will go to Heaven or Hell. It is not where the live, their income amount, or who their friends are, it is how their relationship with God. If they are not saved and they have not done the things required to enter Heaven then yes, they will go to Hell. But if they do everything God tells to do and lead Godly lives then they will enter Heaven. Like I said, it does not matter their income or anything that, things like have nothing to do with how their spirit sits with God.
God and Hell cannot simultaneously exist (take 2)

While I'm usually in favor of short, sweet and to the point, I think this response is too short and thus filled with too many questions. All you have done here is explained the Christian perspective on Heaven and Hell. I am well aware that Christians think that Heaven and Hell are rewards for our actions in the world, but I am rejecting this notion as compatible with the concept of God. here are my responses: 1. My 4th premise is "If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to send everyone to Heaven" you have not disagreed with this and you have not disagreed that God has the power to do so (in fact you say outright that he does) so why would a being with both power and desire to partake in an action fail to partake in it? This is a direct contradiction and it needs an answer from you. 2. Your response leaves the rather large question of why there is a world at all. I agree that it's hard to live right in this world, so why doesn't God just skip this world and create us directly into heaven. In fact, it seems to me that moral perfection would be to create an infinite amount of souls in Heaven so that they can experience infinite good. 3. Prima facie, it seems to me that infinite punishment (Hell) for a finite transgression (living poorly) is unjust. How can we continue to all God moral if he does this? To conclude you have just not interacted with my argument at all, you have merely restated the Christian perspective. To proceed please either reject a premise from my argument or the arguments soundness of validity. Thanks.
God and Hell cannot simultaneously exist (take 2)

I will make my first argument short, sweet, and to the point. Yes, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect in every way imaginable. He does have the power to send everyone to Heaven, He could if He wanted to. The key words here are "could" "if" and "wanted to." Just because someone has the power to do something does not necessarily mean they will. God gives us a choice. If we chose to be bad and not live the way we should, then when we die, our spirit goes to Hell. But if we live like He tells us to and choose to be good our whole lives, then we go to Heaven. Think of it as a "reward" so to speak. It is not easy to be good. We are tempted by everyday evils and if we are good and do not choose the evil path, then our reward at the end of our life time is going to Heaven, or a place of nothing but good and peace. God wants us to all go to Heaven, but WE have to make our own decision, He cannot make it for us. So what I am saying here is that God has the power and knows how to send everyone to Heaven, but it is our decision. How we lead our lives in our human form on this earth will determine whether our spirits go to Heaven or Hell.
God and Hell cannot simultaneously exist (take 2)

this will be my third go at arguing a problem of evil variant. In my past two debates (and in their comments sections) a theme seems to emerge – people disagree that more or less with the premise that there is evil in the world. There have been many different ways of doing this; you can (correctly) point out that I don't define evil, or say that evil is just an "absence of God" or whatever. While these arguments are useful and necessary to establish the problem, I grow tired of them, so I hope that this argument will sidestep that criticism and allow us to move on to something else. Here's the argument: if God exists, no one would go to Hell. I want to start out my mentioning that I will use Hell a lot here, but if you don't believe in Hell, the argument still applies if you substitute "non-Heaven", meaning just that God is incompatible with people going anywhere but Heaven. This avoids the questions about evil because by definition, heaven is good and Hell is bad. If you deny this premise, I cannot see a reason to be religious. Religions all seem to prescribe ways to get into Heaven, so if you don't agree that heaven is better than Hell, then there is no reason to try to get into Heaven. My argument formalized is this: 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to send everyone to Heaven. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows how to send everyone to Heaven. 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to send everyone to Heaven. 5. According to religions, everyone does not go to Heaven 6. If Hell exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to send everyone to Heaven, or doesn't know how to send everyone to Heaven, or doesn't have the desire to send everyone to Heaven. 7. Therefore, either God, Heaven, or both do not exist. To the voters: please adjudicate on the basis of arguments presented in the round. I spend a good deal of time on this stuff and I feel that just voting your personal stance on the topic is extremely unfair. I would appreciate a short reason for decision at the bottom at the end of the voting period.
The USSR played a more important role in defeating Germany than the western allies.

First, let's clear off these two subjects we are debating about: The Western Allies: Some of the allied powers during WW1 and WW2, these being: the British Empire, the United States, France and various other European and Latin American countries. The USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics): A group of countries, consisting of Russia and many other small ones. Now, I shall go on with my first arguments. I. Importance of the British Empire. The British Empire was one of the "Big Three" Allied powers, and most people will agree that without the participation of the B. E. , the Allies never would have won the war. The British Empire included countries from the Americas, Europe, Asia, and even Africa. As you can see, that is a lot of countries helping under the British Empire. With amounts like this, the British Empire (or even just the UK) had stronger forces or cooperations than the USSR did. And without the British Empire's participation in campaigns such as the North Africa campaign, Germany could have easily invaded and annexed many African countries. II. Importance of the United States The United States was obviously a major allied power, from late 1941-1945. And judging that the USA was the one to effectively end the war for good (with bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki), they can be well considered that their participation was more important than the USSR's. I do realize that Japan was not Germany, but without the USA's participation, Hitler would likely have never committed suicide, which effectively ended Germany's participation. III. Importance of France France played a much smaller role of importance in WW2 than the other Western Allies, but what needs to come to more peoples' realization is that without the Free French Forces retaliating against Germany's invasion, France could very well have been fully invaded, and thus being forced into the Vichy regime. If you did not know, the part of France that was successfully invaded by Germany became Vichy France, and the Vichy French forces were an Axis power. As you can see, without Free France's retaliation, we many have had a new axis power on our hands: France.
The USSR played a more important role in defeating Germany than the western allies.

"most of Africa was colonies." So? There was still people in those countries..."Britain's role in defeating Germany was 5-6%." No seriously, you've got to be kidding me. The UK was one of the Big Three allies, and they helped WAY more to defeat Germany than a one digit number. Perhaps a country like Uruguay put in that little."Nevertheless, the fronts in Africa were more important." Not really. The Soviet Union didn't even do much in those fronts."But this doesn't tell anybody how France played an important role." Extreme sacrifice and the strength to hold back the German army doesn't count as important to you?"The German occupation of France." Germany didn't occupy France, only parts of it (Vichy)."Operation Torch" The Red Army wasn't involved in that."yes, this includes the forces killed by other countries other than the USSR." You seem to keep agreeing with me on certain things. "These countries include Finland, Romania, and Bulgaria." There are more reasons why these countries switched sides than what you stated. "But lets face it: the Soviets would have won even without all the help anyway." Not true at all. Without the Americans, British, Australians, Canadians, etc., the Soviets would've had their butts handed to them on a silver platter (sorry for the strange metaphor)."Bloodiest battle in history." So? It was only very bloody because there were so many troops shooting at each other at that time."Live in poverty for years." The Treaty wasn't THAT bad. And for the entire rest of that argument, might I add that WW1 and WW2 started 25 years apart? A baby could have been born in 1914 (the year WW1 started) and would have been a fully capable, trained soldier for WW2."German was defeated by American supplies, American money, and Russia men." Might I add that you mentioned two American things and only one Russian thing. This alone proves that the USA had a more important role than the USSR, and you were the one who said it. And don't you realize that it also took American men? British men? Canadian, Australian, French, Brazilian, etc. men to defeat Germany?_____________________________________________________________________ Finally, what you must understand is that there were more than one theaters and fronts. Take the Pacific Theater for example, which was mainly just the USA and the UK against Japan. That was arguably the most important theater of World War Two.
The USSR played a more important role in defeating Germany than the western allies.

The UK alone had almost a hundred divisions, so that negates a bunch of your argument over the British Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org...)"they would have gained nothing since Africa was just desert." Yeah, that explains why there were PEOPLE there. And many African countries had highly skilled militaries."Britain's role in defeating Germany was 5-6%." Are you kidding me? Please tell me you're joking..._______________________________________________________________________ On to your arguments about the United States... "The United States had a major impact in defeating Germany." There ya go. Goes with my case."...land troops in Africa in 1942 by which time Germany was already going to be driven out of the continent." You do realize that the North Africa campaign wasn't the ONLY campaign in WW2, right? ____________________________________________________________________________ Finally, I will know rebute about France. "Germany only suffered some 160,000 casualties during the Battle for France." From (http://en.wikipedia.org...), the Allies suffered 2,260,000 casualties. The Axis (Germany and Italy) suffered 163,650 casualties. Speaking as the Allies lost WAY more men and that France was the main fighting allied power in this battle, it is obvious that France gave a huge amount of sacrifice and effort to defeat Germany."never gave their full cooperation." But Vichy France was an Axis power... "In Africa for example, most French soldiers did not even want to fight the Americans..." What African campaign are you talking about?_____________________________________________________________________________ "8 out of 10 of all German soldiers who died during WWII died on the eastern front." Perhaps, but beware that the eastern front contains many other allied countries than just the Soviet Union.And for your second argument, most of the war was fought in eastern places like Europe and Asia. Other allied powers managed to fight in that area by sending troops there either via airplanes or ships.
Drinking while pregnant is child abuse due to the damagae it causes.

I will now attack her case that she presented in Round 3. As for the first piece of evidence she brings up in her case is by Yahoo answers, but when we click on the link to see that person's sourcing the sourcing is: "old scientist. " Who is this old scientist. I wish to know. the fact is that this part can be thrown out as we do not have a name for this person and it's from Yahoo Answers which makes it even less creditable. Secondly, it was Pro's duty to define Child, but since she failed to do so I chose to in Round 2. I defined it and it still stands that a child is a child when it is born up unitl age 14 and this wasn't contested even with what my opponent said in round three. How's this you may ask? It is simply that my opponent says if the fetus can live outside of the mother then it's a child and can be abused and that's correct on the counter of the fetus is outside of the mother and hence has been born and is now a child. The drinking at this point would not affect the child. Drinking while pregnant would not be concidered child abuse as the fetus is not a child yet and it would thus be concidered de facto. It doesn't matter how many states recognize the fetus as living. They do not recognize the fetus as a child though. Completely different topics. My opponent also drops my second contention proving that there is little chance for the fetus to actually make it to the third trimester and this would mean that if the resolution is passed then everything that could cause a miscarriage would be concidered child abuse. It is unlikely and invalid for such a course of actions to occur here. Though the fetus may be awhere of its surroundings it is still has less moral value then a rock, because the fetus will change and will cease to be a fetus and has no potential. A rock, however, will always be a rock and holds a great amount of potential as it can hold a great deal of minerals and be used for so many things. The fetus has a great chance of dying and thus has less moral value than that of a rock.
Drinking while pregnant is child abuse due to the damagae it causes.

"The traditional scientific/medical view is that a fetus becomes a child when it becomes sufficiently complex and well-developed that it can--at least theoretically--survive outside its mother's body, even with lots of medical intervention." (2) If the fetus still in the womb can survive outside even with help then most of the nation will consider it a child and therefore it can be abused. In Missouri and 17 other states, the laws recognize a fetus as living at the time of conception. If you are a living person/ child then you can certainly be harmed. Since all these states consider a fetus to be living then if a mother chooses to drink while pregnant and causes damage to the fetus then it is considered child abuse because they are doing it knowing what is going to happen. A fetus is well aware of what is going on around them; therefore they do have moral value. As far as I know a rock cannot know what it around it and cannot move or talk so what"s the moral value of a rock? Nothing! "Studies have found that a fetus can hear sounds, though muffled, at as early as 20 weeks and by the third trimester their hearing is intact. Sonograms show that your baby may turn their head in response to a noise." (1) If your baby can hear you as early as 20 weeks along them that proves they are aware of their surroundings and are alert as can be. On ultra sounds, a fetus can be seen turning their head in response to their parent"s voice. They become familiar with their voices from an early start and will recognize them long after they are born. (1)http://www.pregnancyandbaby.com... (2)https://answers.yahoo.com...
Drinking while pregnant is child abuse due to the damagae it causes.

Physical damage, "In the United States, prenatal exposure to alcohol is the most common cause of birth defects. Exposure to alcohol during pregnancy causes damage to the brain and affects the child's behavior, these effects can be prevented by 100 percent." (1) Drinking while you are still pregnant is never a good choice. You are causing your baby untold harm before they are even born. There are thousands of babies born every year that are already addicted to alcohol. The smallest amount of alcohol can do permanent damage to the baby. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is one of the biggest problems you child can face if you drink while you are pregnant. That damage done by this condition can affect your baby for the rest of their life. Conditions can include: Facial deformities. Slow and retarded development. Brain and neurological problems. Why would you want to subject your baby to this kind of a life just because you wanted to get a drink? The effects of alcohol on a baby"s brain are not reversible. That damage is done and there is nothing you or anybody can do to fix it. Drinking alcohol can also increase the risk of miscarrying or having a stillborn child. No mother wants to go through the horror of that happening especially if it could have been prevented in the first place. (1)http://www.aacap.org...
Should girls have the same education as boys

I. Physical EducationUnfortunately, women are just not on the same level for PE, which is why some states have different standards for women in mandatory physical education. As sad as this is, women should not be forced to compete on a man's level, or should men be held back by women. This is just how it is.II. Sexual Education Nearly every district in America has different education plans for sex, that are different for men and women. This is important to maximize sexual education. For example, you don't want 16 year old young man sitting in a class with 10 other young ladies, watching a video on how the vagina works.This is an example of separated education that is needed.III. Sociology/Conformity Let's not deny it, we all fall into social groups. Male and Female are just broad denominations of one social group called mankind. As proven by most modern day psychologists, people will conform to whatever social group their in, and even though many will have their personality affected by multiple social groups, there will be effects from the female and male one individually.Now, in most cases male and females can be given equal guidelines, but in order to maintain balance and make people feel safe in their social groups, we sometimes reform education to make sure everyone is comfortable in their sphere of education.
What triggers a stronger response to a situation: Fear or Reward

I enjoyed the debate as well and here is my final case. Yes, fear of keeping your job is probably greater than reward and is overall better in the short run. However, I still think that in the long run there has to be some sort of reward for working harder. While you may be afraid of losing your job, you still will not have any incentive to go beyond whatever the mandatory work is. Without any kind of advancement or positive feedback, there is no incentive to go beyond whatever the minimum is. Also, yes, there is a fear of not getting a promotion but it is not what is the drive of working harder. Those who want the promotion will do anything to get it but if in just fear of losing their job, they will do whatever the minimum is that is required. I hope you understand my point and this was an enjoyable debate.
What triggers a stronger response to a situation: Fear or Reward

You make a good point. But let me ask you, would you work harder to obtain a better position or to keep your only source of income. Failing to get a promotion will be unfortunate but failing to keep your job at all and losing your work and money is of a more dire consequence. You can survive without a promotion but not with being fired constantly because you never feared losing your job. Fear is still the stronger motivator here. Now I have headed your argument for the long term, what are your thoughts on short term. In a short term situation, reward will be dwarfed by fear. When in fear, we move and react faster, think clearer, and feel less due to adrenalin. Tell me these factors don't cause you to work harder. The comment I mentioned earlier is a great example. You would work harder to keep your legs attached to your body than to gain. Humans always work harder for self preservation. Thank you Ofek for your insight. I have one more point. If presented with a reward, there is also the fear of not obtaining this reward. So in a way, when presented with reward, you are still propelled by fear. The fear of losing said reward. Thank you for this debate.
What triggers a stronger response to a situation: Fear or Reward

It's nice to here back from you. You took a little while so I was worried you had forgotten about our debate or just could not think of a response. Here are my thoughts. I do agree with you that some force is good. Children need to be disciplined and not be babied or they will never be ready for the real world. However, to me children are different than adults. While a piece of candy and spanking can be used for children, I do not think that the same system can work for teenagers and adults. Take a job for example. Let's say that as a boss or employer all you do is threaten them that if they do not do their work they will get fired. While this may be effective in the short run, I think that as time goes by and there are no other rewards for working harder, people will eventually just do their work and do a poor job. On the other hand, if you simply just establish a general idea that you must do your work or you will get fired as well as rewarding those who work harder than others whether it being a raise or a promotion, in the long run you will get workers that are much more productive and hard working. Most people want to be rewarded for hard work in the end and not just be in fear of losing their job. It is true some force and fear is needed but their needs to be a balance. Yes, dictatorships do have some productive workers but that does eventually fade away as in communism eventually every does get tired of working hard for no extra money and will eventually overturn the system.