BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If a God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, then Free Will Does Not Exist

I thank and welcome you for joining the debate. Why did God have no control over whether or not Adam and Eve ate the fruit? If He is all powerful and all knowing, then He had to have the ability to stop it, surely. Any mere man would have been able to stop it had they been knowledgeable enough of the situation. You said " For example, if a man goes to shake someone's hand god perceives this before it happens but he does not control it." I never asserted that He would control everything if He knew everything; what I was arguing was that if He knew everything that would ever transpire, then we can't possibly have free will. If we did, we could have the ability to do what God would not expect us to do, meaning that He is no longer omniscient. For one to know what will happen means that that event could not have been different or changed"if not, then one wouldn't know what would happen. They could predict, but not know with certainty. You also brought up God entrusting us with free will. I'll have to ask, how can this be? Exodus 10:1 states "And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him. . . " So God purposefully changed the Pharaoh's "heart" (his opinions and beliefs, in other words) in order to guarantee the success of Moses. You could say that this was because Moses was special and incredibly important in spreading God's word"if that's the case, why couldn't God change the mind of Eve to not eat the fruit that gave humanity sin? Is that not the most detrimental action transpired against our species? There are verses like Ephesians 1:4 ("For [God] chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight"), and 1 Corinthians 2:7 ("We declare God"s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began,") that state specifically that God has a plan, a destiny, for all of us. If God Himself created a destiny for you, how could you possibly have free will? If you could go against this plan, you'd be going against God's very will. So, either God is petty and His will can be disobeyed by a mere human, or God is giving you the ability to go against his will and change "your" destiny, and therefore removing the idea of free will all together. And since you did not address it, is God omnibenevolent?
If a God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, then Free Will Does Not Exist

I shall disagree to your statement good sir. God himself is all powerful and all mighty, however, once Adam and Eve consumed the forbidden fruit( which was of free will and choice despite it being of an evil persuasion), which god, being omniscient as he was, had no control over, banished them to live on their own terms. Throughout the bible god played, for the most part , the passive role sending disciples to places of needed salvation. He did not dictate them through possession, instead he relies on them because he trusted humanity and their upstanding mettle. He may be all seeing but he perceives it through the actions of people and the choices they make that change their future. For example, if a man goes to shake someone's hand god perceives this before it happens but he does not control it. I believe god has created us, given us life, but entrusts us to figure out the truths ourselves after he laid down the foundations.
Chinese people who eat dogs have the right to do so

In the United States, dogs are viewed as family and have a special role in many lives. Most people would find the idea of consuming a dog (as one would eat cow or chicken) repugnant. In certain parts of China, people buy dogs to eat (let me be clear that I am not generalizing this act to all Chinese people, only a small minority eat dogs and it is frowned upon for the most part). My argument is that they have the right to do so. It is prima facie morally permissible to eat dogs. Obviously, if a dog is killed inhumanely or tortured, it's absolutely wrong to eat them. In this case, I'm talking about killing a dog humanely and cooking / eating it has any other food. Although Americans eat beef without a second thought, Hindus believe that cows are sacred, and would consider our consumption of cow to be as equally wrong as Americans believe eating dog is.
Shanks is the strongest character in the One Piece Anime/Manga

Now for my rebuttals. Contention 1: It takes years to master the powers of a Devil FruitDoes that really matter? You don't need to master your devil fruits just to fight with them. His Yami Yami no mi is considered unique, even for a Logia type, and his second devil fruit, the Gura Gura no mi, has been widely regarded as the strongest Paramecia devil fruit. Even after training for 3 years you can still be extremely strong. Contention 2: Shank’s Raw Physical power is immenseWhy did Mihawk stop having daily duels with Shanks? Because he lost interest after Shanks lost his arm. This means that his physical powers have lowered considerably.Shanks sword, according to the wiki, looks bigger than a regular saber. This means that there is a possibility it was specially made. Contention 3: Strongest Haki in the One Piece WorldRight now, I'm going to try to prove that the person with the stronges Haki is Rayleigh, not Shanks, because I know Blackbeard doesn't have it. This is just to prove that Shanks doesn't have the strongest Haki. 1. The auction house- Rayleigh's haki was able to knock out everyone at the auction house, and pick out some people still standing. He was also able to check which monsters on the island he was training with Luffy in were stronger than Luffy.2.Redirecting Kizaru's attack- Kizaru was in Full Motion! This also proves that he has Busosoku Haki. Kizaru was coming straight at Zoro, and then... Rayleigh comes in. He redirects Kizaru's lightspeed kick like it was nothing.3.Rayleigh's sword- Rayleigh's sword is a straight-bladed sword, and has no remarkable qualities, just like Shank's.Shanks has had 10 years of training? Rayleigh has had over 30. Contention 4: Blackbeard himself stated that he was not ready to face ShanksThere has been a 2-year timeskip. Like you yourself have stated before, just because one person is more powerful than another at one time, it doesn't mean they are still at the same power after.
Shanks is the strongest character in the One Piece Anime/Manga

Now onto the Rebuttals. ============================================================================1. Blackbeard had the advantage in an earilier fightThere are clear problems with this point. First, I do acknowledge the fact that Blackbeard gave Shanks the scar at one point in time, but that doesn't meant that he is more powerful right now. The thing is that earlier in the series, Buggy gave Luffy a hard time. Luffy and Zoro both had to work hard in order to defeat Buggy. Now, Luffy would beat Buggy with one hit. You see, since we don't know when exactly this encounter occured, we don't know how the power levels of each person was at that point in time. We can't say that just because something happened back in the day, that it still applies currently. It's understandable that Blackbeard did better in the earlier fight, but that doesn't mean Blackbeard is more powerful right now.2. Blackbeard's Devil FruitsI said it before, and I'll say it again - it takes YEARS in order to master ones Devil Fruit. I've already given sufficient examples of this in my last argument. It's understood that his Devil Fruit powers should be taken into consideration, but I still don't think he is powerful enough. Furthermore, even with the 2 Devil Fruits that he had - he admits that he still wasn't ready to fight Shanks. The fact that he lost one arm, actually doesn't mean anything. The strike he had with Whitebeard, he stopped Akainu's magma punch, and he did it all with one hand.3. Blackbeard has immense enduranceMy opponent's point here is that Blackbeard "can survive a long fight with Shanks and cannot be finished with one blow. " That may be true, and we can assume that if they were to fight, it would be a very long battle, and wouldn't end in a couple of quick punches. However, in response to the endurance, once again comes Shanks' Haki. Just with Shanks being there and not even trying to do anything, Blackbeard will have to summon up a decent amount of willpower. As I stated before Shanks was knocking out people from Whitebeard's crew like it was nothing. And once Shanks actually uses his Haki to his fullest extent, and strikes with his saber with Haki imdued in it - it will pack quite a punch! ===========================================================================Look forward to opponent's rebuttals===========================================================================
Shanks is the strongest character in the One Piece Anime/Manga

Thanks Pro, I will now move on to my arguments.1. Blackbeard had the advantage in an earlier fightBlackbeard and Shanks had already fought once, at an unknown time after Roger's death. You can see a weapon that Blackbeard used to use here http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net... and the weapon he uses matches shank's scar. Also, shank's scar seemed to tingle when confronting Blackbeard, which means we can safely assume that the scar was given to Shanks by Blackbeard. There are no noticeable scars or wounds on Blackbeard, which means that Blackbeard was not given any lasting wounds. With that I make the conclusion that Blackbeard had the advantage in an earlier fight.2.Blackbeard's devil fruitsBlackbeard's first devil fruit, the Yami Yami no mi, lets him control darkness and gravity. He can pull or push things away, and can create a vortex that sucks things into another space. His second devil fruit lets him create earthquakes wherever he wants, and can add them to his arm to make an explosion. There is also a high chance that Blackbeard gained more devil fruit powers in the 2 year timeskip, as he also got to learn how to use his powers then. Also, Shanks is at a disadvantage since he only has one arm.3. Blackbeard has immense enduranceBlackbeard's devil fruit ability has a cost: It makes all attacks more painful. Blackbeard took an explosive punch that was amplified from Whitebeard, considered the strongest man in the world, and he didn't even lose consciousness. He even took a slash from the same man's giant sword without any lasting damage. He also took two spears of fire directly to his chest and simply shook off the attack, and was hit by a giant Sengoku in his Diabutsu form and came out with minor injuries. This means he can survive a long fight with shanks and cannot be finished in one blow.Rebuttal time Pro.
Shanks is the strongest character in the One Piece Anime/Manga

I will be saying that Shanks is the strongest. In Round 1, my opponent should name a character that he/she thinks is the strongest. Then, we will be debating over which of the two characters is the strongest. Also note, You can only choose a character that is currently living. Format:Round 1: States RulesRound 1 Con: Acceptance, and names which character he/she will be debating forRound 2 Pro: Presents ArgumentsRound 2 Con: Presents ArgumentsRound 3 Pro: Rebuttals (for Con's Arguments)Round 3 Con: Rebuttals (for Pro's Arguments)Round 4: Rebuttals and ConslusionsRound 4: Rebuttals (the rebuttals can't be rebutting anything that is stated in Round 3) and ConclusionsRules: No TrollingNo ForfeitingFormat of the debate must be followedFaliure to follow any of the rules stated above will result in a loss==================================================Hope to have a good debate!
Consoles are better for actually gaming than PC and yes this is a call out to all you PC master race

Note: In the last round, every time I stated contender, I meant instigator. I apologize for this error. Though I found your prominent use of the Ad Hominem fallacy amusing, I will continue on. LAN parties don't have to be complex, and that's something your missing. It's easy as bringing a decent laptop (which most households have anyway[1]) which is only like $300 max if you know where to look, in comparison to a console (PS4[3]/XB1[4]) $400 without any games with it, while PC games have plenty of free games that you can play with friends casually. And a LAN party can be as easy as going to a friends house, connecting to their internet and playing some in-browser games with them. To say that a small amount of people would be willing to have a LAN party or just go to their friend's house with laptops is absurd. Not every household in the United States has a console but almost all of them have internet connection. It's not the name that matters, it's the actual thing that happens. If playing Super Smash Bros. locally with four players had a proper term, I'm pretty sure even most Smash players wouldn't use the term. And yes, video games can be used at parties with people that don't typically play video games. But is the reason that they're there because of the video games or the social aspect of the party itself? That's like saying you can have a cake at a party even if the people who baked it aren't remotely interested in cake baking at all. Of course. It's there, but do they have to be interested in it? No. It's something to do, but not something that ties people together. Now that PC gaming and console gaming is on equal footing in terms of social setting, a few things to keep in mind about PC gaming over console gaming:- PC games are A LOT cheaper. In fact, most of them are free. Just go to Steam's front page and look at the prices. [5] - Many console games get ported to PC, so you can play most games for console on PC. [6]- PC's have a longer life than a console; the last generation of consoles lasted seven years, while PC gaming has been staying strong for over fourteen years. [7]- High end PCs have better specs than consoles [8]Now this comes from a gamer who plays both PC gaming and consoles, but I like both equally and have no preference for another. However, if it had to come down to what I'd pick if I could only have one, I'd have my PC. Sources:[1] http://blogs.forrester.com...;(Computer data)[2] http://www.bestbuy.com...;(Laptop price) [3] http://www.gamestop.com...(PS4 Price)[4] http://www.amazon.com...;(XB1 Price)[5] http://store.steampowered.com...;(Steam Prices)[6] http://www.gamespot.com...;(Console games) [7] http://www.wired.com...;(console life) [8] http://www.extremetech.com...;(specs)
Consoles are better for actually gaming than PC and yes this is a call out to all you PC master race

The contender has stated lan parties as his prime and only real argument outside of the dedication to communities and yes this is opinion because there is no true facts to determine how much console gaming brings people together. The idea of Lan parties for average people is ridiculous on two levels one having a console for each person is often and I mean very often to expensive to accomplish and the hassle of tying to set up a lan party with full size computers because most of the computer gaming community uses desktops is another chore in its own and saying it can be bigger and even more social to have huge lan parties than just 4 people to a console is legitimate if your not considering that most of the casual gaming community has never even heard of a lan party especially the younger generation. I know in the perfect situations from an outside perspective computer gaming can be made to be just as social as consoles but you have to take into account reality and in reality people don't invite each other over to lan parties and hell console video games are often broken out in non video game centered parties by groups of people not even considered gamers. I know it is hard to look at a different perspective here but just try for a second looking as a casual gamer who uses it as just a side activity and not the main event and then you realise the true strength of console gaming in its ability to be there as something to do when your drunk with your friends or if much younger something to do on a sleep over or at a birthday party. You cant compare the small community of people willing to have a lan party to the rest of the casual industry that is just fighting a losing battle
Consoles are better for actually gaming than PC and yes this is a call out to all you PC master race

I will take on the contender's argument. Contender states that Console gaming is better because of the social implications of being with someone when playing. However, this is not necessarily true. As you can play with people on a console in person, you can have LAN parties and play together on laptops while retaining the social element of console gaming that the contender has mentioned. In fact, LAN parties may allow for MORE social engagement, as LAN parties can hold much more than four people playing the same game[1]. The contender mentions how online MMORPGs "cannot even compare to the sheer enjoyment that console gaming brings", which possibly refers to playing with friends (the contender's argument is primarily opinionated, unclear and has no facts to back it up), MMORPGs can also be played in a LAN party.And though MMORPGs lack physical interaction, the interaction within the community is immense. For example, dedicated World of Warcraft players spend an average of around 21 to 22 hours a week. MMORPGs are also known for their extremely empathetic and supportive community, even known for funerals for players who have died in real life[4] and vigils for players who may die[3]. As such, it does not require one to actually be with another to build social ties. In that sense, wouldn't PC games be much more powerful than console games? What else can you think of that can bring people that have never known each other in real life together? I await an argument from the contender.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;(LAN Parties) [2] http://electronics.howstuffworks.com...;(WoW) [3] http://kotaku.com...;(FFIX dying player) [4] http://joi.ito.com...;(Wow Funeral)
Consoles are better for actually gaming than PC and yes this is a call out to all you PC master race

The argument is not one of which is the more advanced in terms of visual effects o an argument over which has more games to play .This is an argument over which is better for gaming as a whole if a choice was to be made one or the other for all time which would be better for gaming as a whole and for the fan base. I am on the side of console gaming being the better of two good choices because the social implications of sitting next to a friend on the couch and gaming with him is a much better feeling than having a lobby with 4 online friends which consoles can also do. I mean I can think of no better memories gaming growing up than playing Mario smash bothers and having all four of us playing in the same house was so much fun and unforgettable experience. The online mmorpgs that are computer gamings trademark even if u hate that it is, cannot even compare to the sheer enjoyment that console gaming brings
abortion is ok depending on the situation

Thank you.It seems that my opponent admits that abortion is the killing of a human person.However, he brings up the scenario of rape, claiming "by having the baby, not only is she carrying the child of the rapist, but she must bare the memory as well."Now rape is a touchy subject, but bear with me.Unfounded utilitarianismMy opponent assumes that utilitarianism is a valid form of morality. Unfortunately, this is simply an assumption, and has no basis. Do the ends justify the means? My opponent has not shown this to be the case, and many people would disagree with him. Why should we accept this morality over other forms of morality?Subjective ideas of "better"But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend utilitarianism is the correct source of morality. Unfortunately, my opponent simply assumes that a woman's right to "be physically and emotionally secure" trumps the innocent baby's right to life. Many people would say that an innocent person's right to life is the most important right, above any other rights.Unfortunately, my opponent's assumptions that the right to physical and emotional security override an innocent person's right to life, are simply unfounded.Another scenarioLet's imagine that a mother is, for some reason, unable to have an abortion after being raped. The baby is born, and grows up into a young boy. Now, is it "ok" for the young boy to be killed? An argument could be made that this boy is a living, breathing reminder of the horrible rape. If my opponent will accept the morality of killing a person inside of the womb due to rape, he should also accept the morality of killing a person outside of the womb due to rape.In conclusionNow I would like to clarify: I believe that anything that can be done to help the mother emotionally and physically heal after a rape, should be done. Unfortunately, I must draw the line at morality.Something inside of us cries against this position, even if we try to rationalize it away. We know that killing an innocent human being is always wrong.Finally, after a rape scenario, what a woman primarily needs is love and a restoration of that dignity which has been so horribly snatched away from her; not an abortion.
abortion is ok depending on the situation

I apologize, I honestly didn't think anyone would take this up :) , first time on, but here goes :) but, one particular situation I am talking about is rape..... a woman who is raped and impregnated shouldn't be forced to have that baby. rape is a traumatic and horrible experience for any woman to have. by having the baby, not only is she carrying the child of the rapist, but she must bare the memory as well. now the question to abort the baby is a difficult issue, also I am a man and do not fully understand the emotions of a woman who have been raped, it goes without saying she shouldn't have a living breathing reminder of that experience. we all know that it isn't the babies fault that it was brought into the world by these circumstances, but a woman has a right to be physically and emotionally secure. with that being said many will argue that the child shouldn't have to pay for the sins of the rapist, but no one should have to raise a child born from an unfortunate event like that.
abortion is ok depending on the situation

I accept. Pro shall have the BoP to show that abortion is morally permissable in certain situations.Unfortunately, my opponent has not clarified what he means by "situation." What situations is he talking about? My opponent also simply states his own opinion, and commits a bare assertion fallacy. (1)My opponent provides no explanation, nor defense for this position. He must clarify which situations abortion is morally allowable, and why.Until he does so, the resolution remains unaffirmed.Thank you(1) http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...