BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Eden Gardens are in Heaven !

I have to apologise to my opponent but I really cannot see the logic he is working to. The whole of Genesis one, after talking about the creation of heavens and earth in verse one, is written as if it were an eye witness account of someone on the Earth acting as an observer. I find absolutely nothing in the passages my opponent has cited which even indicate that Eden was in Heaven. Nor incidentally can I find anything elsewhere in scripture which indicates the possibility. Eden was created in the East. In the east of what? Where is there any suggestion that Heaven even has an "East", only the Earth is ever spoken of as containing such directions. I now understand, however, why my opponent cleverly excluded use of the "NT" since to do so would show Jesus words that he was the only one to have come down to earth from heaven to earth in human form. Clever, but such are the rules so I shall not include the scripture in which he states that. Yes God called the expanse heaven, and we still call it such today even though it is a physical heaven not a spiritual one, which the "real thing" is. In one sense of course, my opponent is right in that everything originated in heaven, but there is no way that anything can be above the spiritual heavens because the spiritual and the physical cannot mix. I find the following statement by my opponent interesting: "Adam was created from the Dust of the ground of the earth, but was placed in Eden, languistically speaking Eden should be outside earth, otherwise there would be no reason to give a name to the place where Adam was placed if it is on earth!". I ask why there was not reason to give a name to the place which God created as a pattern for Adam and Eve to work to to make the Earth the Paradise that it was intended to be. In that "Paradise of pleasure" that "Garden of Eden", which was given a name to distinguish it from the rest of the earth around which, whilst fertile was as yet unshaped and a "work in progress" for Adam and Eve, along with their descendants to complete. Adam was cast out of Eden, along with his wife, purely and simply because they no longer were to be allowed access to the "tree of life" which would have sustained thie bodies permanently, and presumably to prevent them from using Eden as a pattern for the rest of the earth again. There is absolutely nothing in scripture which suggests anything other than the Garden was initially formed on the earth. I look forward to the next round.
Eden Gardens are in Heaven !

The first occurence of the word Eden in Genesis is this one :8 And Jehovah God planteth a garden in Eden, at the east, and He setteth there the man whom He hath formed; Genesis 2 YLTFrom which we can assume Eden is the place where Adam was first placed, but there is no direct reference on where Eden is located. Adam was created from the Dust of the ground of the earth, but was placed in Eden, languistically speaking Eden should be outside earth, otherwise there would be no reason to give a name to the place where Adam was placed if it is on earth!10 And a river is going out from Eden to water the garden, and from thence it is parted, and hath become four chief [rivers]; Genesis 2 YLTSo from this verse up to verse 14 We understand the origine of the waters of the named rivers on earth, is a river going out from Eden, but before this in the first Chapter, God had already mentioned something about where the waters of earth come from : 6 And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters. ' 7 And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so. 8 And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second. Genesis 1 YLT Basically it was all one water, and God sparated them with Heavens, so there are waters above heavens that are the origin of earth's waters, now the logical place of Eden, as one of its rivers is the origin of some earth's rivers, can only be Heavens. In the 3rd Chapter, we got this verse:23 Jehovah God sendeth him forth from the garden of Eden to serve the ground from which he hath been taken;So Eden isn't the ground from which Adam was made, it was a transitory place, and now that he had sinned, he is sent back to earth! This is just one more evidence that Eden isn't on earth. I send it now to Con so that he shows us why he beleives Eden is on earth. .
Pro-Choice is unethical.

In order to refute my original statement using the Hammock Scenario, you either had to a) prove there was a logical fallacy with the scenario, or b) prove that the definition of human life was not subjective to personal interpretation, and was in fact a scientific constant. I will argue that the state of being Human is not subjective to interpretation, but is a state of being. One can only be Human, or not Human - no in between. The fact that different cultures define Human life at different stages affirms that we don't have a clear metric for determining humaneness[1]. "If it's subjective, then what is there to debate? It's like you saying NUHUH on one side and me going YUHUH! on the other. There needs to be evidence and information given." Precisely, and that is why your argument conforms to my Hammock Scenario. The Burden of Proof lies on the person incinerating the man in the hammock, not the other way around. And until you definitively determined the man in the hammock is deceased, you have no right to incinerate him. "This would only prove your hammock scenario if a person thought a fetus was a human being." False, the man in the hammock is a Human regardless of what the offender interpreted him to be. It isn't subjective to interpretation. The man could have been asleep, unconscious, or in fact deceased. "Your resolution stated: "I will prove the Pro-choice stance is unethical." All we have been debating is whether or not ABORTION is ethical, not Pro-Choice." I defined Pro-Choice as "Mother's reserving the right to terminate a pregnancy". That's the equivalent of saying, I can defend Pro-Slavery, but doesn't necessarily mean I believe in slavery. Defending slavery would be equally as unethical. "Whether abortion is legal or not, they will still take place." This contributes nothing to the Pro-Choice argument. Murders are illegal, and they still take place. This is an Appeal to Common Practice. "Also, I need to ask. If someone you knew and were got raped and got pregnant as a result, would you still be against an abortion?" The equivalent question would be, is murder of an innocent being justifiable if rape is committed. Assuming my argument holds up, I would say no. "Law is a reflection of society's beliefs and values. If the society wishes a bill to be passed into law, the chances of it going through are large (in a democratic system). Law is sometimes referred to as the "ethical code" or "secular moral code" (http://www.knowledgerush.com......). So when Canadian Law states that abortion is legal, it is safe to say that the majority of the population agrees with the fact. Here is a picture to show where the world stands on abortion: (http://upload.wikimedia.org......)." Again, Appeal to Common Practice. Thank you kukupser for participating in this though-invoking debate. Good luck on the last round. [1]http://en.wiktionary.org...
Pro-Choice is unethical.

I do not accept your definition of Human Life." I figured you wouldn't. "By definition a child is a human being, therefore proving that the definition of Human Life is subjective to individual interpretation..." If it's subjective, then what is there to debate? It's like you saying NUHUH on one side and me going YUHUH! on the other. There needs to be evidence and information given. "(thus proving my Hammock Scenario)" This would only prove your hammock scenario if a person thought a fetus was a human being. It does not hold true if a person does not consider a fetus to be a human. You are trying to prove that you scenario is valid using faulty logic. "This also refutes any points you made that is based on the assumption abortion is ethical." Not really (see above). In fact, we have been debating the wrong topic this entire time. Your resolution stated: "I will prove the Pro-choice stance is unethical." All we have been debating is whether or not ABORTION is ethical, not Pro-Choice. Your hammock scenario attempts to justify why abortions are unethical, but it does not even scratch the surface of Pro-Choice being ethical or not. All you have done is prove that Pro-Choice may or may not be ethical, depending on the person. Also, I need to ask. If someone you knew and were got raped and got pregnant as a result, would you still be against an abortion? Law is a reflection of society's beliefs and values. If the society wishes a bill to be passed into law, the chances of it going through are large (in a democratic system). Law is sometimes referred to as the "ethical code" or "secular moral code" (http://www.knowledgerush.com...). So when Canadian Law states that abortion is legal, it is safe to say that the majority of the population agrees with the fact. Here is a picture to show where the world stands on abortion: (http://upload.wikimedia.org...). Whether abortion is legal or not, they will still take place. Every year 68 000 women die as a result of unsafe abortions (http://www.prochoice.org...). This figure is only the number of women who die from unsafe abortions, not the number of unsafe abortions that have taken place. But in Pakistan alone, there are 980 000 unsafe abortions that take place every year (http://www.cvcradio.in...). If anything, Pro-Life is unethical. It limits the freedoms of women, restricting their right to choose. If a person really wanted/needed an abortion but it was illegal, what would they do? Resort to un-safe abortions, put their health at risk and possibly die. This stance on abortion strips women of their dignity and respect. Thank you Skunk for this debate, have fun in the last round.
Pro-Choice is unethical.

I do not accept your definition of Human Life. You define Human Life as "In Canada, Section 223(1) of the Criminal Code states that a child becomes a human being when it has "completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother" (Criminal Code Of Canada). This means that a fetus is not a human until it is born. " By definition a child is a human being, therefore proving that the definition of Human Life is subjective to individual interpretation (thus proving my Hammock Scenario). This also refutes any points you made that is based on the assumption abortion is ethical.
Pro-Choice is unethical.

OK, welcome to DDO skunkrecords! I hope to have a good debate and good luck. "Definitions" I accept your definitions except for the "Human Life" part. In Canada, Section 223(1) of the Criminal Code states that a child becomes a human being when it has "completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother" (Criminal Code Of Canada). This means that a fetus is not a human until it is born. "Murdering Human Life is Unethical. " Indeed it is. "The definition of Human Life is yet to be determined, therefore terminating a fetus can potentially be Murder. " By my definition of Human Life, a fetus is not a human, so it is not murder. "Hammock Scenario" You ask if we reserve the right to murder someone without further investigation, but who says their is not any investigation put into performing an abortion on a fetus? What if the parent has sickle cell anemia? It is a condition where the red blood cells in the blood are shaped like sickles (instead of their regular doughnut shape) and it causes constant pain for the sufferer It can also lead to infections and organ damage, due to the sickle shaped cells not easily being able to move through blood vessels. What about a person that has Alzheimer's? Would you really want to pass on degenerative diseases to your child and possibly have them living for the rest of their lives in pain? What if a person is raped and found to be pregnant? Would you still want them to have the child? Also, Pro-Choice is not unethical. It is PRO-CHOICE, not Pro-Death. People have the right to terminate their pregnancy, but only if they want to. Since a fetus is not technically a human being, it is ethical.
Pro-Choice is unethical.

I will prove the Pro-choice stance is unethical. Definitions: * Pro-Choice: Mother's reserving the right to terminate a pregnancy. * Pro-Life: Advocating full legal protection of embryos and fetuses. * Murder: The act of killing intentionally and with premeditation. * Unethical: Morally unacceptable. * Human Life: TBD. Murdering Human Life is Unethical. The definition of Human Life is yet to be determined, therefore terminating a fetus can potentially be Murder. The Pro-Life position then has the obligation of Burden of Proof to provide sufficient evidence that a fetus is not in fact Human Life. To demonstrate this point, I will provide an example I coined The Hammock Scenario. If a person is laying motionless in a hammock with their eyes closed, do we reserve the right to incinerate said person immediately (provided this was feasible) without further investigation? Said person could have been in a comma, asleep, or in fact, deceased. But if said person was asleep or in a coma, we would rightfully be charged with negligent homicide. This scenario applies to aborting a fetus. Until you define the MOMENT a fetus gains human status, you are potentially commiting Murder, therefore, holding the pro-choice stance is unethical.
Drinking Age

I'm a bit confused as I believe you meant to say "drinking" age and not "voting" age. I'm going with "drinking" age. Additionally, I'm not sure if your are for or against lowering the drinking age, so I'll just go ahead and give you my take. I'm 50 years old and characterize myself as relatively conservative. However, since I was a teenager, I have consistently felt that the drinking age in the U.S. should be lowered to 18. IMHO, if society deems that the majority of it's 18 year old members are responsible enough to be granted the legal status to enter into a contract, cast a vote, or enlist in the military, it would be consistent to allow those same members to legally purchase and consume alcohol.
Competitive computer games should be the part of Olyimpics games.

Greetings, It is my strong belief that, your points were excellently summarized, what we were writing about so far. That's why I just want to rebut them. First point. At the beginning of this debate you defined the meaning of athletics and you alleged that every existing sport of the Olympics games are athletics, therefore suitable for your criteria. You have stated that in the previous round: - Shooting requires: proficiency, physical accuracy and speed. ---> So does computer gaming, you need accuracy and speed with your right hand ( just think about Call of duty). - Curling demands: physical skill and control, plus teamwork.---> Just like gaming, especially strategy ones. In nutshell, I agree with the fact that, all of the sport in the Olympics Games can be considered athletics activity. But, I also feel plenty of them require more agility,logic or even teamwork than physical aspects. Second point. As for me, recently added sports cannot be compared with the original sports in ancient Greece. Original Olympics Games put emphasize on the importance of human body and strength. Nevertheless, modern games mainly tries to delight and entertain our society. Adding video games would totally fit into this progress. Third point. Have you ever visited such a pages like Troll Football? Countless amount of pages work with the goal of making fun from great players. The situation is exactly the same in the field of other Olympics games. Your logic is so unfair and senseless for me. So just because of the unintelligent community, Should we punish or even discriminate the sport itself. Lastly, As concerns as viewership. i agree with you in the sense of that E-sports has much more specific fan base than most of the sports. But this specific fanbase is actually becoming higher and higher by day to day. So I do believe that the number of viewers and spectators would not fall behind from an average sports of the Olympics Games. Ending phrase, I really liked your attitude and thoughts in this debate. I can totally understand your standpoint and partly agree with that. Apart from debate, I am on the negative side either but it was interesting to oppose this motion. Best Wishes, wannamakesomefun
Competitive computer games should be the part of Olyimpics games.

:)Objection #1 You raised the sports, shooting, curling, and golf as not applicable to the criteria I set forth in my argument. This I believe is incorrect, all three of these sports require physical skills and therefore fall under the label of athletic sports. Shooting: This sport requires proficiency with the given fire-arm that involves a tremendous amount of physical accuracy and speed. Curling: This sport also much like shooting requires a great deal of physical skill and control, even including a team aspect. Golf: Golf involves physical strength and accuracy not uncommon to the existence of other sports invovlved in the Olympics. Objection #2You claim that my statemen regarding the Olympics being a historically athletic competition to be false. Your support for this objection is the short history of Cycling, BMX or Mountain biking. This to me appears to be a misunderstanding of my argument, my contention is that the Modern Day Olympic Games are an adaptation of the Olympic Games of ancient Greece,[1] which involve a series of athletic sporting events. Modern sports can and should be added if approriate to the nature of the competition, this is not so for Video Games as it is demonstrably not a athletic sport. Objection #3 You assert that the existence of trolls in every sport should not discount the inclusion of Video games from the Olympics. This still fails to realize the vast difference in levels of professionalism and sportsmanship between Olympic athletes, and E-Sport superstars. The players themselves are largely not to blame, but the overall volatile communities that foster avenues for online bullying due to the fact it is completely anoymous. Objection #4 Clarified my argument to show your "disproving" my primary argument as invalid and a misrepresentation of my assertion. Objection #5 Video games simply have no place in the summer or winter olympics, the viewership for all the events can be just about universally appreciated by the global audience, and this attempt to draw a comparision I believe fails in that I can enjoy the skill one evidently has in diving, without participating in that sport myself. Video games are a much more specific fan base and most importantly are NOT athletic sports and therefore should have their separate venues for competition where the struggling players actually make money. All I have time for, for now. Kindest Regards,TrueScotsman
Competitive computer games should be the part of Olyimpics games.

Dear TrueScotsman, Firstly, I would like to say thank you for your response, I really appreciate it. Now, I am going to react on all of your arguments and bring up a new contention. In your first argument, you wrote about physical requirements of all of the existing Olympics sports. It is not always true. Shooting, curling and even golf require agility rather than physical strength or skill. You labeled Olympics game as a historically athletic competition, it is completely untrue because plenty of sports have extremely short history for instance: Cycling BMX or mountain bike. Therefore, we cannot call Olympics games historical competition. I truly feel the same as you in your second argument, but it cannot be considered to be a reason of opposing the motion. Every sports has its own trolls. That's why I only wanted to argue about competitive level of playing. In the highest level we just barely find sportsmen with negative attitude. Plus, I firmly believe that, the number of "trolls" is nearly equal in every sports. To make the conclusion, because we're only arguing about playing at the highest level, your second argument is not viable. According to your third reason, we should reject competitive computer gaming just because it is not supported by schools. In my opinion, it is just about the financial situation of the schools. For example in Hungary we are really happy, if we have a football team in the secondary school. According to your logic, we should refuse other sports. You are right by saying schools usually treat games as an enemy but I think it is not relevant in this topic. ( it is another debate :D ) I feel , i have disproved your fourth contention by saying that, there are several "new sports" in Olympics games. In addition, competitive level of playing can be matched with the basic values of Olympics (endurance, passion and skill). Reacting to your conclusion, it is not a must to watch computer games and I am sure that you agree with that computer games would attract more people than most of the sports in the Winter Olympics. You have written that the viewers of computer games mainly play games too, otherwise they are unable to understand the whole thing. It is just the same , If we examine less popular Olympics sports like Cycling track or road. Additional argument: - This policy would promote equality and go against discrimination We all know that computer gamers are labeled as "geeks" and they are often the victim of cyber bullying. This change would show that they can be considered to be as equal sportsmen like football players. Good example is Paralympics Games which was created for hendicaped people and for those who are being discriminated from society. Putting computer games into the Olympics may change the school's mind :) I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Best regards, Wannamakesomefun
Competitive computer games should be the part of Olyimpics games.

Initially, To prevent misunderstanding lets define the questionable part of the motion. Competitive video gaming: Playing video games in the highest level (video games such as League of legends and StarCraft 2). To propose this topic, I am going to come up with three contentions: 1. The purpose of Olympics games 2. From the view of individuals 3. From the view of Olimpics Guarantee an event for sportsmen to match. Sport requires addiction, endurance,logic and team play, so does computer games. Therefore computer games completely can be matched with the values of Olympics. Most of us have already realized the fact that, competitive video gaming has a good reputation in our days. Millions of people watch different kind of tournaments by day to day. According to the recent statistics the viewers of the League of legends World finals were higher than the basketball games that were played at the same time. I do believe that, these facts clearly show how many additional spectator would visit the forthcoming games if this policy would set up. Obviously these viewers would be teenagers. I have known several youngsters, who do not really interested in Olympics games,since they cannot find a suitable sports for themselves. But video games would attract these children to attend Olympics games. Lastly, from the view of individuals this policy has no drawbacks. Because of the fact that, it is not a must to watch or visit video games, those people who don't like computer games would turn off the telly, others would watch and what is more buy tickets for the games. Lets move to the much more important part. From the view of Olympics. As I have already mentioned, games would attract more people, so Olympics could make more money from tickets, t-shirts etc. This change would show that, Olympics can keep step with our world. Computers, devices and gamers have wealthy sponsors ( Logitec, Allienware etc.) These companies would support Olympics games and it would mean more financial profit again.