BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus is homoousios with the Father before creation

Pro has not satisfied his burden of proof nor refuted my knockdown argument in a reasonable/effective manner but raised objections I can easily address here. I remain unconvinced that Jesus is homoousios with the Father.'Having an another from united with yours doesn't require any alteration or process of change because just as said the form only got united not mixed with another form.'This could be translated to, 'having an alteration in your form such a union so that your whole form encompasses another doesn't mean that you had an alteration.' The refutation of this objection is simply the law of non-contradiction. I'm refuting my opponent solely based on a law of thought. A is Not A doesn't work in logic. My opponent can probably use this argument in the white house or the theological school of the yellow mellow but not here in DDO.'The distinction, traits and reality of the two forms remains.It didn't mix up so as to produce what my opponent calls "change.'One of those traits as agreed by both is immutability. Incarnation is not even possible to occur if the being himself is changeless/unalterable/immutable like God is. To speak about the union is logically falicious in the first place. I have no clue why my opponent repeats that after I show him how this is a textbook example of begging the question. Due to nature of the debate, I win by only showing one contradiction. And I think I did more than enough to satisfy my burden of proof. Voting is your choice, though if I voted I'd give conduct and arguments to me after the personal insults and weak argumentation my opponent provided, after he realized that he was defeated in this debate.'I already won the debate. My opponent's so called trump-card, the immutability argument, is refuted biblically and logically.'After I refuted the so-called biblical objection, my opponent simply ignored the refutation and took on the logical side. As you can see, he violated the law of non-contradiction and commited a begging the question fallacy in his 'logical' response. If that is a refuation of an argument, everything is.You know yourself who to vote to.
Jesus is homoousios with the Father before creation

Basically, Jesus' form changed into God form + human form. This is undergoing a change in form, which contradicts the immutability trait. Which means that my argument was not refuted at all. My opponent thought that the incarnation caused an inevitable change of form, that is, the union of two forms became another form. Well, this is not Chalcedonian christology found in the Bible but this is Monophysitism per se which is foreign in the scriptures. To win this debate, my opponent has to prove that having another form united with yours doesn't require any alteration or process of change in an entity/being/god as a whole. I wish him the best of luck. Having an another from united with yours doesn't require any alteration or process of change because just as said the form only got united not mixed with another form. The distinction, traits and reality of the two forms remains. It didn't mix up so as to produce what my opponent calls "change".1+1+2 not 1+1=1I already presented a clear and scriptural evidence about the Incarnation as logical in Round 3 with matching elucidations on the omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence of Christ so I don't need to repeat it here but instead, I will now provide scriptural and logical proof concerning the Hypostatic Union:The Word in his preincarnate state can't die human death. The Word in his incarnate state can die human death ( Acts 20:28)This is not a change in nature because the divine nature of the Word did not become perishable to death but rather, he added unto himself the human nature that is why he can die a human death. The Word in his preincarnate state can't get hungryThe Word in his incarnate state got hungry ( Matthew 4)This is not a change in nature because the divine nature of the Word did not changed into having an appetite but rather, he added unto himself the human nature that is why he can be hungry and eat human food. There is one Christ and he can only do what his nature(s) is able of. It's the same with us humans, we can't not eat food and drink water. It's our nature to consume in order to survive. According to my opponent himself, I won. Conclusion:I refuted every argument my opponent has against me but my opponent did not as anyone could readily see and read in the rounds we've taken. He can still refute my remaining arguments, though. But if he didn't it would only show that either he can't refute it being irrefutable or didn't take it seriously at all. Nevertheless, I already won the debate. My opponent's so called trump-card, the immutability argument, is refuted biblically and logically.
Death Penalty

My opponent has forfeited the round. However i will still give my arguments. In this round, my burden will be that the Death penalty is not an acceptable form of punishment, and i must provide an alternate solution. My solution for the round will be simple. A life sentence. Although this is already implemented. I believe that it should always be picked over the death penalty. I will provide 3 key arguments in regards to this alternative. C1: Death penalty does not provide an adequate punishment for the crime(s) a criminal has committed. The death penalty offers an easy way out. We must weigh the punishment with the act committed. If someone takes the life of someone else or multiple people, is it less of a punishment to kill them off immediately. You only end all of their stress, and worries. By giving a convict the death penalty, you give them the proper punishment for the heinous crime that the convict has committed. It is much harder on the convict and a much more suitable compensation to give them a life sentence. C2: The death penalties expense is costly to the US economy. Samson in 09 continues The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated. If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of Life Without the Possibility of Parole*, which costs millions less and also ensures that the public is protected while eliminating the risk of an irreversible mistake, the money saved could be spent on programs that actually improve the communities in which we live. The millions of dollars in savings could be spent on: education, roads, police officers and public safety programs, after-school programs, drug and alcohol treatment, child abuse prevention programs, mental health services, and services for crime victims and their families. Required Burden Since my opponent forfeited the round there was no burden of proof met or even stated. Since the Pro has simply not made an argument, the round should automatically go to the con. http://www.deathpenalty.org...
Death Penalty

Alot of my friends at school were talking about how it isnt fair that in jail some people get the death penalty and are mad at me because im for it. And i am for this type of action. Some of my friends think that it is cruel and mean but truely i think that it is a great idea. Say you are in jail for killing twelve people, do you really expect to just get a life sentecne? I mean it is one thing to steal something or not paying taxes but taking somebodys life and expect to get away with it is just nuts! So they asked me to put this subject on here and see what people say about it.
The all new Pak-a-Spak™ Rucksack will be a "must have" accessory for male commuters

Those of us who travel to work by train or metro will know all too well how difficult it is to get a seat in the rush hour and if a male commuter is fortunate enough to get a seat, social etiquette demands that he must give his seat up if he sees a lady standing. This inevitably means that a gentleman is never sat down for very long. But would his fellow passengers feel that he should relinquish his seat to a perfectly able-bodied woman if he was cradling a disabled toddler in his arms? No, of course not! Well, that's where Eggleston's Sub-Ethical Enterprises' all new Pak-a-Spak™ Rucksack comes in. You see, concealed within a perfectly normal-looking rucksack is an incredibly lifelike dummy of a small disabled child. http://getsaucy.files.wordpress.com... Prior to boarding a crowded train, all a male commuter needs to do is discretely remove the Pak-a-Spak™ dummy from its rucksack, climb aboard the train and sit down to enjoy the ride safe in the knowledge that with a disabled toddler in his arms he nobody will be expecting him to give up his seat to a lady. Okay, the doll pictured above is just a prototype and it may need some further development before it is officially launched but, in principle, I believe that the all new Pak-a-Spak™ Rucksack will be a "must have" accessory for male commuters Thank you.
The all new Pak-a-Spak™ Rucksack will be a "must have" accessory for male commuters

I'm glad I provoked a Eureka moment for my opponent, but I'm afraid his new idea is even worse than the first one. My opponent's new idea for this doll sees it covered in pig skin and horse hair, filled with weighted limbs, accessorized with a fake saline drip, blanket and working heart monitor. The Pak-a-Spak has become cumbersome and expensive, and no more realistic for its troubles. Unless the bus you're travelling on happens to be carrying a lot of "special" people, that doll wouldn't fool passenger one. MY idea, on the other hand, is foolproof and inexpensive, so long as it is done right. Crossdressing is one of society's oldest customs, and great men all throughout history have done so. Jesus Christ, a once-influential figure in our society, was a well-known cross-dresser, shown here in a lovely two-piece number: . http://www.geocities.com... Many well-known females are actually males in drag, which shows how realistic it can be: . http://k43.pbase.com... . http://2.bp.blogspot.com... . http://img.tesco.com... In conclusion, I applaud my opponent for finally making a stand and trying to do something about this sexist and discriminatory rule of society, but I think he is going about it the wrong way. To get the Pak-a-Spak to a level anywhere near realistic, it would cost billions, possibly trillions, of dollars and would almost certainly need to be designed by NASA. As you can see, NASA has enough problems of their own without having to worry about making feux crippled toddlers: . http://milesobrien.files.wordpress.com... I have shown that there are much cheaper, easier and more effective ways of dodging this dodgy rule of society, and therefore that the Pak-a-Spak is definitely NOT a "must have" accessory for male commuters.
The all new Pak-a-Spak™ Rucksack will be a "must have" accessory for male commuters

Eureka! When my opponent very kindly accepted this debate he unwittingly gave me the idea that will make me rich beyond the dreams of Avarice. That's because he wrote: "Hell, you could take a dead toddler to a taxidermist and get it stuffed..." Well, I wouldn't go down that path but, as you will observe from the following photos, pig skin and human skin are incredibly similar. http://www.eatmedaily.com... http://www.chinadaily.com.cn... In fact, scientific analysis proves that they are almost identical. http://cat.inist.fr... So while using human skin might not be legal or economical, my Pak-a-Spak dummies will be covered in tanned pig skin instead. And, I'll use real horses' hair on their heads too. Furthermore, their eyes will be closed and their limbs will be weighted with lead in order to simulate a comatosed child. To complete the effect, each Pak--Spak Rucksack will come with a phony saline drip, a small blanket and a mocked-up heart monitor as well. That way, if any of the passengers challenge the owner, all he has to say is: "You heartless beast, I'm taking my son home from hospital so he can be with the family for his birthday. I'm hoping the sound of his brothers and sisters laughing and joking will bring him out of his coma." And if they are still unconvinced and try and get a closer look, all the owner has to do is quickly press a button on the back of the fake heart monitor that will make it flat line, pull the blanket up over the Pak-a-Spak's face and say: "Blimey! It seems my son has suddenly passed away. Oh well, never mind, I'm sure he's gone to a better place". This will prevent the Pak-a-Spak owner from being laughed at, spat at and being beaten up as my opponent predicted, as he surely would be if he chose to dress like a lady, which my opponent offered as an alternative suggestion for a gentleman to duck his chivalrous obligations to the fairer sex. http://www.bbc.co.uk... Thank you.
The all new Pak-a-Spak™ Rucksack will be a "must have" accessory for male commuters

I always enjoy reading your debates so I'm glad to have the opportunity to be in one! My opponent is quite right in stating the annoyance of being a male and commuting by bus or train, and having to give up our seat for every Tomantha, Dickless and Hariet who wishes to steal it. I don't know who created this unwritten rule, but I certainly wasn't at the meeting, and I've gotta live in this society too ya know! So you're pregnant, big deal! I'm lazy and high, but I still managed to score a seat. I digress. .. First of all, I agree with my opponent's assertion that any self-respecting able-bodied woman wouldn't dare expect a male to give his seat up were the male holding a disabled toddler. But the Pak-a-Spak, humorously named though it is, would never work. My opponent admits that the photo provided depicts a mere prototype, but unless the final product is an advanced robot capable of possessing and displaying human emotions, it's not gonna fool anybody. This would be expensive and, as far as I know, out of the capabilities of modern science. Hell, you could take a dead toddler to a taxidermist and get it stuffed, and it's still not gonna fool anbody. I think it's also probably illegal. Damn republicans. The Pak-a-Spak not only isn't a "must have", it's a "must not have". Any guy who pulled out a doll of a disabled toddler and attempted to use it to keep his seat would first be laughed at, then possibly spat on, then the other males of the train would probably beat you up. A much safer bet would be cross-dressing, so that you yourself could reap the benefits of this unjust and unwritten law of society. Perhaps even slip a pillow down your blouse so you look preggers, which is a double-whammy; even other women will be giving their seat up for you then. I have nothing against my opponent's plan to deceive commuters to attain or keep a seat. But the deception is pointless if you are likely to get caught, and there is no way somebody would get fooled by the Pak-a-Spak system. Cheers.
The Minimum Wage

Minimum Wage laws are cruel and inhumane. They are racist laws and should be abolished. "[T]he minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That's what the law says. The law says here's a man who would — has a skill which would justify a wage rate of $1.50, $2.00 an hour. You can't, you may not employ him. It's illegal. Because if you employ him you have to pay him $2.50. Well, what's the result? To employ him at $2.50 is to engage in charity. Now there's nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in a position where they can engage in that kind of charity. Thus the consequences of minimum wage rates have been almost wholly bad, to increase unemployment and to increase poverty. Moreover, the effects have been concentrated on the groups that the do-gooders would most like to help. The people who have been hurt most by minimum wage laws are the blacks. I've often said that the most anti-Negro law on the books of this land is the minimum wage rate." - Milton Friedman[1] Minimum Wage laws are tools used by politically well-connected labor unions and big business to force their competitors out of competition. The economically ignorant with good intentions support the law because they foolishly believe that it is a help to the downtrodden, when it is precisely the opposite. 1 http://www.facebook.com...
it is moral for god to do what satan does

It is not moral for God to do as Satan does because God is the opposite of Satan, as opposite is defined as "diametrically different; of a contrary kind." Because God is contrary to Satan, it is not moral for God to do as Satan does. If we make the assumption that Satan is evil (by definition Satan is "adversary") Since, God is the opposite then he is good. Good and Evil rarely if ever, intertwine... Thus, if Satan does something evil, it is not moral for God (as an opposite) to do the same thing...
Abortion should be illegal

Thanks for commenting your sources :) Fetuses can start to feel pain up to seven weeks up before the abortion. When the heart beats it after 22 days of being in the womb it is said to be considered alive and can feel pain. http://reason.com... http://www.livestrong.com... Also say if a girl is raped and she is too young for a responsibility of a child. what she could do is save the fetuses life and give birth to it for another family. Its kinda like if you see an abandoned puppy on the street, what are you going to do? Bring it home and save it, thats like having the child and keeping it, take it to a shelter, thats like giving birth for adoption or leaving it to die on the street, thats is abortion. Thats what I always think about when it comes to this debate. http://ezinearticles.com... You mentioned illegal abortion too, I'm against that, not just because of the deaths of women who get them but their fetuses too. You mentioned that most of these debates go with separation of church and state, but the Bible doesn't say anything about abortion but does say "you shall Not Kill" that means for all his creations big or small. http://ezinearticles.com...
Abortion should be illegal

Props to Pro for posting this debate, and thanks for letting me participate. I believe abortion should be legal because a fetus is not a person until birth, anti-abortion arguments are usually based on religion and threatens the vital separation of church and state , and if safe and legal abortions are not available, women will be driven to dangerous back-alley abortions. A fetus is not a person until later on in the pregnancy. Until then, the fetus only has potential. If destroying the potential of a person is considered murder, then ejaculating would be a mass killing. Linda Lowen states in a article that "nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb". If abortions became illegal, many pregnant women will rely on illegal abortions. Over 47,000 women die each year from illegal abortions where abortion is illegal. If abortion was illegal, a rape victim would have to go through a dangerous abortion which could kill her. In conclusion, abortion should be legal because a fetus is not a person until birth, anti-abortion arguments are usually based on religion and threatens the vital separation of church and state , and if safe and legal abortions are not available, women will be driven to dangerous back-alley abortions.
Gay Marriage Legalization

Thank you for the topic. And I'll be the con for the Gay Marriage Legalization. And so I stand on grounds that disagree with the legalization of gay marriage. Of course, I won't state my personal beliefs. I may or may not be a devil's advocate. Same sex marriage. Well, since there isn't an idea for me to argue right now, I'll start off with the differences between a normal couple and a gay couple. In a normal marriage, first thing you can think of is procreation. Normal couple can have a child through a natural birth, while gay couples cannot. Marriage in essence was a institution to support procreation of that couple 'exclusively'. And no matter the scale, they had to deal with 'adultery' had they looked upon another women with lust. Gay couples on other hand cannot procreate. Something marriage intended to support isn't in their power to do so. And if you think about procreation, you can think about a child and its growth. In a research shown in a book by Susan Golombok (Ph.D), 25% of children raised in a gay household exhibited gay behavior. And without a proper mother, or father, there may be some part of mentality that a children may lack when grown up in a gay household compared to children grown in a heterosexual household. Still, there is lack of evidence in this, but the research that shows effects in children raised in a gay family suggests it may also effect other psychology. Plus there may be peer pressure amongst children, and children who are of gay household may experience unwanted complex involving having gay parents. If they think we don't have the right to take away their happiness, why do they think they have the right to take away anyone's happiness? Peer pressure amongst children is the hardest thing a child can come by and frankly, deciding to adopt a child in a gay family is exposing the child to that world. On a side note, there is nothing that stops them from becoming a couple, just the part about marriage. So it isn't really limiting their happiness. On the other hand, to most religions gay marriage is just plain wrong. So there is no need to speak about religion here I guess. In a 2008 survey, 76% of Americans were Christian. 1.4% out of all Americans a Jew. 0.8% out of all Americans a muslim. To others, no religion. But the majority of people have religion that strongly disagree with gay marriage. Law is for the people, and frankly law that does not have support over the majority is as good as a dead law. I on the other hand think it's a good idea to allow gay marriage alternatives such as civil unions.