BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A metaphysical Supreme Being exists.

Ok, I'll go through the major ideas of the round. *I apologize, I never cited the Summa Theologica. 1) My opponent says that Aquinas is only arguing a Christian God. 2) If causation was true, it would have to apply to God as well. I will go through each. #1 My Response: This is indeed false. The 5 ways only argue the existence of "A" God. Only until after he proves the only logical way for the universe and its laws to have existed; he will then explain how the Christian God is logical as well. I did not go to that point, I'm just defending the existence of a supreme being. #2 My Response: My opponent says that if causation was true, it would have to apply to God as well. Here is why that is untrue (Taken from my previous God debate): My opponent is very true when saying this. My opponent is being logical. However, there is a difference. We both agree that this "Supreme Being" is out of the physical world, i.e. aphysical and atemporal. Therefore, the laws in the natural world, i.e. Argument of Motion and Causation, don't apply. This is where my opponent makes a flaw. She is saying that the laws of the natural world are the same no matter what time/space or dimension. Let me go further. These natural laws, according to Thomas Aquinas (One of the founders of natural law theory), explain that the natural laws proceed from non-contingency. Non-contingency is a word meaning, no cause. Therefore, this "Supreme Being" is the only non-contingent being. The natural world, as we know, because of the big-bang is contingent. Thus, a non-contingent being, i.e. the necessary being, had to have started the 2 fundamental principals of natural law, i.e. Motion and causation. You can drop my opponents 2 arguments. Extension: He failed to attack Contention 1, extend this. Ok, now my opponent makes his argument again by imagination vs. existence. I have 2 response: 1) Just link my 2 points. The universe could not have A)Created itself, or B) Have previously existed, because this would be infinity, which is scientifically, and mathematically impossible. 2) This idea can affirm my side. This is argument of ontology. It states that nothing conceived by the human mind could not exist in some form. Like, people cannot conceive or even make a new color, on the fact that color derives from light. The mind cannot conceive a new color, only a straight forward color, like red, or a mixture like sea-green. We, as people, since the beginning of human history, have conceived the idea of some sort of "god". From the polytheists, to the monotheists, etc. Therefore, you can use my opponents argument against him, since I have proven for a conceived idea to be true, it either is straight forward, or mixture. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
A metaphysical Supreme Being exists.

Perhaps next time my opponent would like to provide some sources, I find it rather humorous that my opponent would be able to come up with an original idea which EXACTLY (word for word) matches that of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), "The Five Ways" http://www-phil.tamu.edu... Aside from the fact that my opponent TOTALLY forgot to mention the source of his argument, my opponent has failed to disprove my argument, possibly his only truly original thought in the previous round was this: "My opponent is indeed false. I can conceive the idea of a supreme frog, the king all frogs. Since its an abstract thought, and I conceive that its supreme, then its possible to be both." My opponent has done nothing more but to demonstrate his ability conceive of an abstract idea, the "supreme frog" still doesn't exist, nor is it supreme in any way shape or form. This is the perfect example showing how one can conceive something and it won't exist beyond his or her mind. Oh, it looks like my opponent had a second original thought: "It is not, on the fact that something aphysical and atemporal is NECESSARY for that existence. Link my 2 contentions to this assertion of my opponent. You can affirm right here." First and foremost, those are not my opponent's own contentions, as I showed in the beginning of this round. I'm left with the task not to actually address my opponent's contentions, but those of Aquinas. Contrary to my opponent's implied intention, Aquinas is specifically arguing the existence of a Christian God, not of any randomly conceived "metaphysical supreme being". To counter Aquinas' argument I will offer my opponent's own idea of a "supreme frog", the "supreme frog" is equally capable of fulfilling the purpose of a Christian God which attempts to fill a gap in the scientific knowledge (basically what Aquinas is arguing with "motion"). A "supreme frog" is just as likely to put the world in motion as a Christian God… I'm only entertaining this idea to show that conceiving of a useless idea to fill a gap in knowledge is, well, USELESS! Furthermore, the idea of causation is contradictory, because Aquinas argues that the universe needs a cause for existence and that cause is God (efficient cause), but fails to answer what is the efficient cause for the existence of God. I would argue the efficient cause for the existence of God is people: humans created the concept of God :), this leads us to a sort of "chicken and the egg" problem, which is precisely why Aquinas' is incorrect. Back to my original argument: regardless if you conceive a "supreme frog" or God, the conception of such metaphysical "creature" is just an idea that does not even come close to being supreme or existent… at the end it's ONLY an abstract idea which does NOT exist beyond one's own imagination. If my opponent would like to offer his original ideas for the next rounds, I'll be glad to debate them too :).
Homeschooling is Bad

Looking for a Pro argument, who therefore agrees with the statement "Homeschooling is Bad." I would like to see the various evidences for this. Since the statement Homeschooling is Bad is an assertive one, burden of proof is first on Pro. Therefore, I would request that my opponent provided his primary arguments in round one. This, obviously, does not exempt me from defending and presenting my own position, that Homeschooling is Good. Rather than give a strict outline, I would rather see where this discussion ends up.
Resolved: The U.S. should allow all imports of goods and capital.

Second round for positive arguments. Third round rebuttal and positive arguments. Fourth round rebuttals only. Fifth round conclusion (no new arguments for positive advancement of position or against opposing position). Full resolution: The United States should allow imports of goods and capital from any society outside of the United States allowing that the domestic laws of the U. S. (such as regulations, finance laws etc. ) are followed. Essentially, anyone may sell goods to the U. S. and invest in firms, land, capital goods so long as they abide by the laws that all U. S. investors and U. S. firms have to abide by with goods sold in the U. S. and investments in U. S. firms, land, and capital goods. Firm: Profit seeking associations that provide goods and/or services to consumers. Land: Property owned for purpose of sale or development. Capital Goods: Goods bought with the express purpose of creating other goods or for providing a service (tree pulp to turn into paper as an example of the former, a lawn mower as an example of the latter). The con position would be that the U. S. should not adopt this policy; as such, one could counter that full economic isolation is the best means, or that merely some mark less than total import allowance (within domestic law) should be allowed. Good luck, and thank you in advance for your acceptance.
Resolved: The U.S. should allow all imports of goods and capital.

I accept. I will note that, as CON, all I have to prove is that not *all* goods should be imported. PRO, on the other hand, has to prove that all imports should be allowed to enter the country, and has the burden of proof. Therefore, to win this debate, all I have to prove is that *one* or more goods or services should not be imported. I would also like to define 'goods'. Goods: merchandise or possessions; this includes peopleOn to you, Pro.
Ice Cream taste better with Oreos

I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.I lIke Oreos with Ice Cream.Now Lets Argue!
We should stop supporting pandas and let them go extinct

So why are other animals more important than pandas? And also, pandas could be hunted when their population is a good range, so we could make fur banners and things.And besides, what's China supposed to do when Pandas do go extinct? Have a now extinct animal as a mascot? I'm assuming Pro's arguing about extinction for pandas, anyways. It's far too late for him to clarify, anyways.In conclusion, we should keep pandas, because we can (hopefully) eventually get them into an appropriate population for hunting purposes, and so China can keep their mascot. My opponent hasn't said much that suggests we should get rid of pandas. It doesn't matter if we aren't helping "more important animals" if we don't know what those animals are!
We should stop supporting pandas and let them go extinct

You are correct I probably should have worded it better, I meant that we don't kill them ourselves instead we slowly but not instantly cut off the support and donations to pandas and divert it to more important endangered animals/plants like plankton and endangered fungi. If we cut the support off instantly it will cause an outrage and less people will donate to the charities that decided to cut of support to pandas. The reason for this is pandas are expensive to keep and breed now that wouldn't be a problem if they kept other animals alive but think of one animal they help none. Yes they do get rid of bamboo but at the rate they eat bamboo it grows back and their waste fertilizes the bamboo helping the weed grow faster. They take up money that should be given to endangered animals that hold up entire environments. They only reason they are kept alive is the fact that they are "cute" and a cultural symbol. It cost $500,000 per year to keep one panda that money could save many important animals intern saving entire ecosystems. It is very unlikley this debate will make a difference.
Islam is a Bad Religion.

First of all it's not racist. Racist is discriminating someone on race. Religionist is not a word it's called religious discrimination. I don't care about their race, gender, but I do care about looks. I do in fact have "something"against the religion of Islam and muslims. My main problem is that more than 50% of Muslims are radical Muslims. This includes about 2.2 million radical muslims in America. These people include people who believe ISIS is okay, 9/11 was okay, honor killings of women are okay, and sharia law should be the law of the land. Now into the actual religion. In Surah (3:151) it states all people who don't subject to Islam are not innocent. Surah (9:123) says that anyone who isn't muslim shall be killed. Muhammed was also a very bad guy. He hung two girls for singing satirical songs about him Hisham (819). He also married a 12 year old and sexually abused her. He also married 3 times. In Quran (8:39) it says again to kill all non believers. And finally about looks. I don't think women should wear hijabs, burkas, etc. because it was made to oppress women by Muhammed. I hope you see where I'm coming from.
Gun Control

Debate: I will be arguing that the United States needs more gun control, my opponent will be arguing that the United States needs less gun control. Structure of Debate R1: Acceptance. R2: Pro's opening arguments, Con's rebuttal to Pro's opening arguments. R3: Pro's response to Con's rebuttal, Con's opening arguments. R4: Pro's rebuttal to Con's opening arguments, Con's response to Pro's rebuttals.
It is a good and holy act for Christians to honor Mary and ask her intercession #2

I accept christisking's debate challenge and thank him for his succinct opening statement and concise definitions. I agree with these definitions with one proviso: Namely that during the unfolding of this debate I propose to illustrate that Catholics go beyond simply 'honouring' Mary and stray into the unscriptural realm of worshipping her. I feel fully justified in this semantic discrepancy as my opponent has himself stated that I am, in essence, defending 'my' Protestantism against 'his' Catholicism. I invite my opponent to state his case.
It is a good and holy act for Christians to honor Mary and ask her intercession #2

Greetings to DATCMOTO and to our audience. I hope that this debate is enlightening and enjoyable for us all. In this debate, we will essentially be arguing over the differences between the ways that Catholics and Protestants view Mary (the mother of Jesus Christ) and the way we should act towards her. As the Pro, I will be arguing from the Catholic view point that it is a good thing for us to give honor to Mary and to ask her intercession (prayers) when we are in need. My opponent will be arguing to try and prove this resolution false. I would invite him to explain the Protestant view point in this issue if and only if he so desires. In this debate, since we are both Christians, the Bible will be considered the authoritative Word of God. The burden of proof in this debate will be as follows: Pro (myself) will need to present one or more arguments (either from Scripture or reason) that it is good to ask Mary for her intercession. It will be Con's goal to either disprove 'all' of Pro's arguments as untrue, or present separate arguments which (when fully debated and considered) are more convincing to the voter than Pro's arguments. Here are a short list of definitions to help make sure this debate stays on track:- 'good and holy act' - an action which either gives the doer or some other person benefit or is pleasing to God. - 'Christian' - a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. (Dictionary. com)- 'honor' - to hold in respect or esteem (Dictionary. com)- 'Mary' - The mother of Jesus Christ- 'intercession' - prayers made by one person to God for the benefit of anotherThe first round is for acceptance and any only arguments or questions concerning the definitions. In the fourth and fifth rounds only rebuttals are allowed.
Religion does not supply an a priori unchanging objective a system of morality.

I find your views on history and morality interesting. I am a bit confused because you seemed to have actually made my point. Since you chose to oppose my proposition I am in a bit of confused as to what you are exactly you are opposing. I will restate my opinion and see if we really do differ. During the last few years there has been increasing trend amongst conservative members of the Abrahamic religions in the United States to abandon arguments based on our shared values deriving from predominantly western culture in favor of arguments based on specific religious beliefs. According to their argument western morality can not evolve to accommodate such innovations as gay marriage, but is fixed and unchanging based on religious commandments that are unchanging. They further argue that they are duty bound to enact this morality into law rather than just preach about it. Your comments on torture are ones with which I am complete agreement. As you state torture was in the Roman empire and for sometime after words intended as a way for an accused person to demonstrate their innocence before people had watched CSI on the telly. Although I have to say that the church also employed torture as a punishment for heresy. And, executions of criminals often included an elaborate and lengthy use of torture before the actual killing of the condemned. You argue that as the things changed the Church adapted its moral stance consistently with its principals. This is exactly the kind of morality that I support. The kind of morality I oppose is where people claim they have been told by God that homosexuality is forbidden and because of this morality regarding homosexuality can never change and they are obliged to force members of other faiths to conform with their believes through the use of secular law. Another problem I have with this kind of thinking is how arbitrary the decisions the Catholic church are as to which beliefs are enforced in this manner. Why is the Catholic Church against domestic partnerships on the basis of their opposition to homosexuality, but don't have any political position on the purveyors of gluttony? Why does the Catholic church threaten excommunication for politicians who support abortion rights but threatens to defrock pastors who urge politicians to provide food for the poor? Why are Catholics required to use secular law to oppose abortion, but are forbidden to petition the government to end starvation? My understanding of Judaism, and Islam is that these types of discrepancies are quite common with them as well, but as I already have stated I am not well versed enough in these religions to provide specific examples. One other little question for fundamentalist protestants why do they follow the bible and reject science on evolution, but follow science and reject the bible (which strongly suggest that human life begins with the first breath) on the beginning of humanity.
Religion does not supply an a priori unchanging objective a system of morality.

Many fundamentalist claim that their religion provides an objective a priori moral system. If this was true one would expect the morality promoted by the religion would be consistent over time. While I can't speak for all religions Christianity morality has radically changed over years Catholic Past Protestant Past Catholic Present --------Protestant Present Unbabtised babies go to hell. Yes --------------Yes------(recently limbo, now no) --------no For torture Yes --------------Yes -------------No --------------------Yes For Capital punisment Yes ---------------Yes -------------No --------------------Yes For Genocide Yes------------ unclear ------------no ----------------more clearly no For slavery yes------------ yes--------------- no ----------------------no For Usury No ----------------No------------ i don't know------------- Yes For socialism yes then no ------some yes no ----less yes ----------------most no For Preemptive war No ----------------No------------- NO ------------------------Yes For Drug trade unclear--------- firmly yes ------no -------no when non whites started dealing For public schools no ---------When all white------- no --------------------not anymore For freedom of Religion NO---------- yes/no---------( recently yes now less so)---- mostly no
The Sun going around the Earth. (this is serious)

“Night does not refute what I'm saying,, the Sun still goes around. I'm not saying that the Earth has to have daytime always.” ‘The Sun still goes around’ – what does this mean? You will have to elaborate on this. “I'm not saying that the Earth has to have daytime always.” – That is precisely what you are saying if you meant to propose that the earth ‘absorbs’ the sunlight all around it at all times; what other explanation do you have?
The Sun going around the Earth. (this is serious)

I’ll open with my arguments. C1: The Earth goes around the Sun The Earth circles the Sun due the gravitational pull of the Sun, which is caused because of the Sun’s mass, which is 300,000 times heavier than Earth. C2: The sunlight never makes it around the earth at once Even if I play the semantical game Pro gives, at no point does the earth completely absorb the sun. We have day, and we have night. At night, we do not absorb the sun. Sources http://spaceplace.nasa.gov...
Video Debates should be allowed on debate.org

I must apologize to voters in advance, as my roommates were busy, and I did not want to distract them, be distracted, or have the voters distracted by my roommates, I was forced to do this outside. Unfortunately, it was raining. This is one of the many faults of video debating. The quotes I used are avail on the youtube page, this is yet another inconvenience. http://www.youtube.com... For higher quality youtube.com/watch?v=LvJcRZYp6o8&fmt=18
NBA Wheel draft for tanking

There would be one final draft lottery, with the 14 teams in the leauge that didn't make the playoffs. The winner of this lottery would get spot 1 on the wheel, shown below. The team that finishes second in this lottery gets spot 2, etc. As for the 16 teams that DIDN'T make the playoffs, they would get to choose their positions on the wheel, anywhere from position 15 to position 30. The worst team in the playoffs would get the first selection of their position on the wheel, the 2nd worst team gets to pick next, etc. Here's what each of those 16 positions would look like in the first six years: The next year, the teams would cycle around the wheel clockwise for their next selection in the draft. The next year, they go clockwise again, etc. Another lottery would be held 30 years after the 'final' one, to determine the new positions of teams on the wheel. Argument 1: Tanking would be eliminated:Tanking has been a big problem from the NBA for YEARS. As Bill Simmons points out[2], both the Rockets and the Bulls tanked so that they could get better positions in the 1984 NBA Draft. Tanking is still a problem, to this day. The best current example of this are the Philadelphia 76ers. As of today, March 28th, 2014, the Philadelphia 76ers have lost 26 games in a row. This ties an NBA record for most games lost consecutively[3], a record previosuly only held by the 2010-2011 Cleveland Cavaliers. They are clearly trying to lose as many games as possible so that they can get a better chance of getting a higher pick in the 2014 NBA Draft. This tanking would be eliminated by such a wheel, as no matter how many games they lose, they will still have the pick they are desiganted to have by the wheel. Therefore, they will have no reason to lose their games, and a competitive balance will return to the NBA, making it more entertaining for people to watch. Argument 2: The positions on the wheel are balanced:As is shown in the wheel above, there are 30 positions on this wheel, and the number of these positions represents which pick a team will choose at in the NBA Draft. No mattter which position on the wheel a team is at, within 5 years of the wheel's inception, every team will have had a pick in the top 6 positions of the draft, and this is true for every 5 years after. No position on the wheel will get you better picks, over the long term. If a team gets position 1, they will pick 1st this year, but will have to pick 30th next year, followed by 19th, 18th, 7th, and the 6th picks. Every team will have a fair shot in NBA Drafts, and this ensures that every team can stay competitive. I hope my opponent can come back so he can post in the next round, and I hope for a good round of debate. [1]: . http://grantland.com...[2]: . http://espn.go.com...[3]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
NBA Wheel draft for tanking

There have been some rumors of the NBA and tanking of abolishing the lottery draft system and replace it with a wheel draft which is each of the 30 teams would get each pick once in 30 yrs. I believe that some teams cannot help but to lose and don't have money to build through free agency so they do it through the draft. A wheel draft could give a team such as Miami a talent filled team the chance to get a top pick in a loaded draft such as this year.