BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the most evil human being is probably very intelligent.

If they were intelligent, they would also know all the risks, not just from authorities, but from rivals as well. When your a master-mind criminal, 1. The police want you. 2. Other rivals would try to kill you. To make it even more promising, anyone who knows history knows that most geniuses over-estimate and gets killed. Look at Hitler, and what happened to him. Look at Al laden, and hear what befell HIM. If their cold calculating genius, why don't they see this an run far away from crime??
Resolved: Immigration policies should be expanded to compensate for a growing U.S. society

I apologize. While I knew I would be leaving soon, I did not realize how soon, and there were other issues that popped up prior to my departure. These have hindered my success and ability to post rounds coherently and effectively. So, in answer to my opponent's question, yes, things have come to this due to unforseeable events. Though mine were not health related (as my opponent's were) they were family related, and I had no idea things would go the way they did.However, I am still willing to concede if my opponent does not agree to my terms. Once again, I apologize, and hope this never happens again. (in fact, if I know there will be time constraints, I will avoid entering a debate or instigating in the future)Best of luck, I am leaving in 15 minutes. I'll see how this turns out after I return.
Resolved: Immigration policies should be expanded to compensate for a growing U.S. society

Con has proposed that this debate be suspended and go unvoted due to time constraints on his part, but only if I agree and stipulate thereto. Due to those time constraints, this debate is effectively over after two rounds. I have not yet decided whether I should agree to my opponent's request.I'm pretty new here, so if this is a common courtesy extended on this site, perhaps the readers can let me know via PM or in the comments. In the past, when I have faced extenuating circumstances, I have apologized and offered to concede to my opponent - in fact, the only debate I have lost to date was due to just such a concession. From my limited perspective, this does not seem to be a case of unpredictable extenuating circumstances. My opponent set the terms of the debate, and held it open for quite some time while he selected an opponent. He set the round time at 72 hours. The debate began last Saturday, six days ago. Only after I had accepted and the first round of arguments posted on Monday did my opponent inform me that he wanted the debate finished by Friday, with two rounds of argument left to go. Although my opponent cites "external factors," this doesn't sound like something that came up suddenly - from appearances, my opponent knew that the timeframe would be tight, but did not inform me of this until after acceptance. If I had been aware in advance that the debate period would be truncated, I would not have accepted. As Con requested several times that his opponent take the debate seriously and not forfeit, I am a little taken aback now at his request.That said, others have extended me courtesies on this site (a debate was deleted when I could not complete due to unexpected health issues), and I am mindful and appreciative of that. I strive to extend courtesy whenever appropriate. If my opponent indicates that the rushed conclusion was due to unforseeable events, I will gladly agree to the stipulation.But based upon what I know right now, my inclination is to let the community cast ballots based on the first two rounds of arguments posted. I could certainly be convinced otherwise, as I do not wish to be needlessly harsh or violate the norms of the community. If anybody wishes to offer suggestions as to whether I should stipulate to an unvoted debate under the circumstances, I would seriously consider any guidance.
Resolved: Immigration policies should be expanded to compensate for a growing U.S. society

*This is open to CASmnl42. If you are not him, do not accept*This is a serious debate. Do not ask to accept if you are not serious about this debate. It should be impossible to accept. If interested, say so in the comments and ask any necessary questions.This is a topic of great interest to me, and one I wish to be a serious debate. I created a debate similiar to this previously, and was graciously provided with total forfeits. Now, I wish to re-open this debate and hope to have a more motivated opponent. However, this debate must be accepted by this Friday, May 15th. I would encourage responses as quickly as possible, as I will be busy in the later part of May. I'm trying to squeeze in this last debate before I become tied up with other plans.The rules are as follows:Trolling results in an automatic lossForfeiture results in an automatic lossBoP will be shared between both sidesCounterplans are not allowedUse a sufficient amount of evidence to back up your claimsMaintain a civil and decorous atmosphere (No vulgarity)No K's of the topic. Resolution must be accepted as is.My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitionsViolation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossThe round schedule will go as follows:Round 1: [Con] Rules & Regulations [Pro] Acceptance and Presentation of CaseRound 2: [Con] Opening Arguments (No rebuttals) [Pro] Arguments and RebuttalsRound 3: Arguments and Rebuttals [Con] Closing Statements and Rebuttals (No new arguments)Round 4: Closing Statements and Rebuttals [Con] (No new arguments) [Pro] Ending of Arguments (No arguments or conclusions, simply accepting the debate's end)Definitions: (as per the context of the debate)Immigration: the migration of non-native individuals into the United States, legal or otherwise.Expansion: the increase or renewing of current immigration policies to facilitate and encourage further immigrationThank you in advance, and I look forward to a great debate. Good luck to whomever accepts! :)
God Exists

I ask the reader to disregard my counter argument as it can be seen as a kritik, although I do believe it is a valid argument. Definition of God I was not undermining the definition of God as agreed upon in the debate, rather I was making the point that inquiring as to a deity's potential greatness surely would come after finding evidence of his existence. If God is the creator of all that is, of necessity He must be at least greater than all that He has created. Genetic Information The transfer, recombination, etc. of genetic information does not in any way address my argument. Even if evolution were the case, the genetic information present within the first living cell would have to be accounted for, and indeed could only be accounted for by means of intelligent design. If this were a debate on evolution, I would certainly argue against the veracity of the creation of novel genetic code via mutations, but since this argument does not negate my case, I will not address it. Con would need to demonstrate something more along the lines of abiogenesis. There are very clear and powerful arguments based on evidence which would negate Con's claims concerning evolution, but as I have said, they do not refute my case in any way. Non-Cognitvism of Greatness I have provided evidence which is consistent with God as Creator and therefore, when considering His greatness, demonstrate that He must be immensely great compared to every created thing. Con's claims concerning God's transcendence and its negating His greatness are arbitrary and unsupported. God indeed can "enter the universe" if He is omnipotent. My assertion concerning God's greatness is not illogical, it follows if He created all things that He must be greater than all that is created. Requirements for Causation Time is relevant and began with God's first act of creation. Time can be different outside of our universe. Regardless, there is no scientific reason why time cannot be initiated beyond a few claims of physicists such as Sean Carroll. Conclusion I have provided evidence which is consistent with God's existence and have rebutted Con's essential claims which would potentially refute my case. Read carefully and thanks for your time! :)
God Exists

== Conclusion ==Pro's arguments don't argue for God, instead for creationism, which is entirely irrelevant to the resolution. Pro has not shown that this God argued for in these biological arguments *has to be* (a) omnipotent and (b) immensely great, thus the arguments are entirely irrelevant. I have, nonetheless, rebutted them. Pro's rebuttals to my arguments kept begging the question and I responded to all of them, showing objective greatness is incoherent, and that the God of the Bible can be irrelevant once mroe. I extend my arguments. Since CT requested me to argue in R4, I allow him to rebut, defend and crystallize in the last round.
God Exists

This is the challenge you requested. I thank creationtruth for this debate. Full ResolutionGod most likely exists. BoP is shared. DefinitionsGod - the omnipotent, intelligent, immensely great creator and ruler of the universe.Likely - probably; >50% chance of (something). Exist - have physical/metaphysical, objective reality. Rules 1. Forfeiture is not allowed. 2. No trolling/kritiks/deconstruction semantics. 3. All arguments must be within this debate. Sources may be within this debate or in an external link. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Debate StructureRound 1: Pro's caseRound 2: Con's case, Pro rebuts Con's caseRound 3: Con rebuts Pro's case and defends, Pro rebuts Con's case, defends and crystallizesRound 4: Con rebuts Pro's case, defends and crystallizes, Pro waives I look forward to an interesting debate. Please remember to present your initial arguments in Round 1.
The Problem of Evil can be refutted effectivley.

I will start by making my own theodicy and then my opponent can fire at will... There are two types of evil in this world. (a) Evil humans inflict upon themselves (war, terrorism, crime) (b) Evil humans do not inflict upon themselves (hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes) This two types of evil can be answered with the same theodicy, this is how it goes: God has provided the conditions necessary for character development and growth among his creatures. God's intent in creating the world was not to provide a paradise or heaven on earth. God wanted to provide an environment in which beings with moral and spiritual potential could develop and grow in the direction of completeness. But this requires that we be able to cultivate virtues that can't result from a trouble-free existence. Thus God had to allow trouble into the world. The purpose of this world is soul-making. And that is an enterprise that results from grappling with sin, suffering, and pain. Four distinct factors are required for this theodicy. (a) There must be free-willed beings. Moral character cannot be stamped on a person from outside; it must be freely cultivated. (b) There must be an environment in which these beings can exercise their freedom in morally significant ways. That means there must be real moral choices. And there mjst be stable natural laws as the backdrop and stage for moral decision making. A world in which the laws of nature changed all the time would not be context in which rational decisions could be made about how to act. How would you help a thirsty man man if the glass of water you give him could burst into flames? Or How could you feed a starving child if the sandwich you give her could turn into a snake or stone? Stability provides for moral decision making and moral action. But in a stable world, wrong choices can have bad results. (c) There must be challenges to the characters of the free beings who have been created. In a morally frictionless universe, no one would grow. We grow through conflict and difficultly. So problems must exist. (d) There must be opportunities for these free beings to respond virtuously as well as viciously to their challenges. The suffering in the world can't thus all be utterly overwhelming. And we can't be led by the hand, metaphysically speaking. We need elbow room for making mistakes as well as for doing good. I look forward to your rebuttals.
The Problem of Evil can be refutted effectivley.

I thank the good Republican for starting this debate. I will use this round as my opponent has requested; to establish my "own version" of the problem of evil. I will presume by "own version", my opponent means the version of the problem which most appeals to me as a refutation of a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God. For my mind, the most elegant treatment of the problem is in a little piece (possibly incorrectly) attributed to Epicurus: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? The he is not omnipotent. Is God able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is not benevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? As my opponent requested, I will leave it there for this round and await his rebuttal. Thanks.
The Problem of Evil can be refutted effectivley.

Problem of Evil-a philosophical argument against the existence of a God who is all-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving based on the premise that if such a God existed the amount of evil and suffering in this world would be significantly less if not non-existent. I will allow my opponent to establish his/her own version of the problem of evil in round one, and then I will publish a theodicy in round one. Sources are insignificant, the only source I will be using is my mind and I encourage my opponent to use his.
WW2 would not be won without US support (before and during joining the conflict)

Japan had low resources regardless of American intervention China was too hard to tack no matter what. The Italian campaign was pretty easy im sorry to put it bluntly. Briatin destroyed Italy with colonial troops. The German Afrika corps weren't that good either. The Allies only struggled becuase they set another landing in Frnace and Germany went down to help. In 1941 the Germans had suffered their winter defeat and your number is wrong-At the time of the Nazi assault on the Soviet Union in June 1941, The Red Army had 303 divisions and 22 brigades (4. 8 million troops), Including 166 divisions and 9 brigades (2. 9 million troops) stationed in the western military districts. The Britsih would NEVER make peace with Germany, You know Winston Churchill. The British didn't need to invade Norway as the citizens pretty much took it back. Again Britain didn't even had it tough in the war compared to countries even Greece and maybe even Bangledesh had it tougher, Two countries completely left out of the conversation, Yeah the Blitskrieg was tough with 43k dead but German bombings approximately 410, 000 German civilians were killed by Allied air raids. From July 1944 to January 1945, An average of 13, 536 people were killed every month yet they were fine for 6 years without ANY support. The Germans were not going to get Moscow and if they did they would still have a tough job. Thanks for the debate
WW2 would not be won without US support (before and during joining the conflict)

Japan had low oil after the US refused to continue trading with them. If they did not revoke the trade deal Japan would have oil plenty. The Italian campaign was harder than you thought. Even with US support the Allies struggled out break out of the Salerno area and struggled again to get through Anzio. Many people thought the USSR is unstoppable but it has its limits In 1941 Germany had 3, 767, 000 soldiers while the USSR had 2, 680, 000. The USSR army size greatly expands but since the US gave no support to Britain in this scenario, The British got rekt and made peace with Germany. Hitler had 400, 000 troops stationed in Norway in fear of British attack. He would also be able to pull from a non-existent Western front and temporarily take Moscow. He would not win Russia but Germany would survive with only one fighting front.
WW2 would not be won without US support (before and during joining the conflict)

Japan did not have enough oil and resources in the first place, Again China was winning by 1943 and USSR destroyed them in their 2 month involvement. Australia and pretty much all of Asia was against Japan, USA just got a couple islands and nuked Japan, China did the real bullwork against Japan. They were pretty much burned out by 1943 regardless of the US involvement. I beleive that the USSR could have deafeated Japan in general. Britain and the RAF didn't need American help. Did it help Britain. Yes. But once the Ignima was broken, There was no need for the US. There were generally fine during the war, People think that Britain had it hard and tough, But compared to other countries, The Blitskreig was nothing. Britain would have cleared Africa and Italy with help of the colony without the US. The USSR was unstoppable against Germany
WW2 would not be won without US support (before and during joining the conflict)

Without US withdraw of oil they gave Japan, The Japanese would be unstoppable. Britain received a huge amount of Lend Lease equipment and ammo, Food etc. The Japanese would never have taken China cause of China 500 million pop to Japan 70 mil. Japan would never be defeated though. Japan would turn China into weak puppets. Australia would not be taken but Japan would never be defeated and Germany would survive since Britain would get rekt without US 100 octane fuel tanks, Food shipments ammo planes, Ships etc meaning only one front,
WW2 would not be won without US support (before and during joining the conflict)

I would say that in Europe, Germany would still have been defeated. The wehrmacht had already begun to suffer a string of defeats in Russia before the US even became significantly involved. However, I doubt that D-Day would have taken place, And that the British would have focused mainly on the Italian campaign, Which would have seen a much larger portion of Europe fall to the Soviet Union. The pacific is much more complicated. I contend that the Japanese could never have conqured all of China, Even with all of its recourses focused there. It is simply too big and has too many people, And it would be nigh impossible to supply troops a thousand miles inland when the supply trains are attacked by partisans. If Japan had opened a front with the British in southeast Asia, I beleive that they might have been able to get into India if they put all of their recourses into it. Just look at how fast Tomoyuki Yamashta (I can't spell his namecorrectly because it is censored lol)conqured Burma and Singapore. Japan would have been a tough nut to crack without the US. But allies would fine a way
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) violates the 10th Amendment and is unconstitutional

Since the people have not in any way indicated that they want or need a referendum in the existence of DEA, the agency is safely assumed to be something all the States, and poeple within it, support.Until there are protests or any kind against it and widespread urgency to shut it down in any one State, this resolution holds false until proven that there exists any distaste in any one State against the existence of DEA.This debat eis about DEA only, not other agencies.
Which is better Team Fortress 2 or CS:GO Pro-CS:GO Con:Team Fortress 2

However, TF2 has much more good lore and characters. In CS:GO you can be a tough general guy or a tough general guy. TF2 has much more charm to attract more people and is more fun. Another good point is its art style. TF2's art style is a beautiful breath of fresh air compared to the bland graphics of CS:GO.
Which is better Team Fortress 2 or CS:GO Pro-CS:GO Con:Team Fortress 2

CS:GO one of the most popular FPS games in the world is more Realistic, Competitive, Entertaining, And Strategic. I will also discuss currency for in game items. The first round is to simply explain what points you are making. I will start with How much more Realistic and Competitive CS:GO is compared to Team Fortress 2. In CS:GO you are put into hostage extraction and bomb situations. One side you play as counter terrorists which are like SWAT or Navy Seals. While on The terrorist side you are like ISIS or any other terrorist group. You are put into these situations where money and strategy come into play in the first round you have only enough money to buy pistols or armor. You can choose to save this money for the next round. The more kills and rounds you win the more money you build up dying makes you lose money and shooting a hostage does as well. CS:GO also has a wide fan base and huge competitive background with tournaments hosted world wide. Millions of fans come to see these events or you can watch them live. There are professional players who really care about this game and love it to the core. Team fortress just does not have as much support when it comes to fans that CS:GO does.
Taxation should be abolished:

THE MORALITY OF TAXATIONMy opponent claims that taxation is not theft because it is legally sanctioned, and I responded to this by asking him if the Nazis butchering of 12 million Jews was still murder even if it was legally sanctioned. He responded to this by saying that the holocaust was not legally sanctioned by international law, and is therefore murder. However, he still hasn't answered me how one government is more legitimate than any other government, or how any government is legitimate at all. What gives international law precedence over German Law? And what gives a government its authority in the first place?It seems that statism relies on the notion that the government defines morality- when in reality morality exists separate from any supreme being. It is natural law that defines morality, not state law- which ultimately is illegitimate in its relation to morality. As the government is not exempt from morality, as it would have us believe, we must hold it to the same standards as everyone else- and even if we assume, for cause of definition, that taxation is not theft, it is still coercion, which is wrong, and which is defined as:"the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."THE NECESITY OF TAXATIONWe can raise money for the police and military through voluntary donations, requests for money, or by selling cookies. There are millions of ways to make money and any of them could be used to fund our military. We could buy 4.8 Trillion in stocks, and at the standard profit to value margin of 8:1, this would get us enough to fund the military. Better yet, we could go the completely different route of privatization- historically speaking mafias and Italian gangsters have offered much better protection than a police force, so I see no reason why we can't just have the Italian Mafia back in charge and provide us with national defense as well. I'm just thinking of ideas, but any of these would work, and though selling girl scout cookies might not seem very appealing, it's better than raising funds through coercion and theft.