BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The question "can god create a stone he cant lift" does not disprove the existence of god.

My opponent never challenged my claim of God's omnipotence. This being true, if he is unable to do anything, even betray the laws of nature, or geometry, or contradict himself, he has still limited his power. Thus making him not omnipotent. Realistically, the only way my opponent COULD have won this would have been to successfully challenge that definition I gave God. But since she didn't, I urge a vote to CON. There are many things god cannot do such as make a mistake, or improve. This does not show god is not all powerful it's just that there are certain things that only imperfect people can do. And so too is it with the stone. Actually, it turns out my extra argument wasn't to waste. 1. If God has always been omniscient, he knows and has known forever what he is going to do.2. God is omniscient. [3]. Therefore, God is defined, and cannot chose what he wants to do.1. If God cannot chose what he wants to do, then he has limited his omnipotence. [2]. God cannot chose what to do. 3. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. God cannot create square circlesMy opponent states he defeat. God cannot create square circles, or more specifically, contradict himself. God is not omnipotent.
Tom Brady Did not deserve to get suspended

Rules I am for tom brady should not have gotten suspended. 1. No forfeits 2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final speeches 4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate 5. No trolling 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution) 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions 8. The BOP is evenly shared 9. Follow the structure of the debate properly 11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness) 12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a loss
You are not my god

Seeing as this is in no way a FORMAL Vote i accept. No Am am not Manny Ramierz. So ya post your comments, eat your salads, and vote Con after this is over. Also enjoy this video DISCLAIMER: CONTAINS SWEARING BUT IN AN EXTREMELY HILARIOUS WAY! ............ OTher WISE WATCH THIS http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Without God, there is no morals

I am an atheist I make no claim that morals come from evolution my claim is that morals arise from empathy and education within the self, and that this has no need of a god for its existence. Pro asks "If I kill someone, why is it bad. " taking a life may be the moral thing to do in some cases. For example in WWII there was a failed attempt on Hitler's life via suitcase bomb. If Hitler would have been killed would it have been a bad thing? If killing exceeded birth rates the society breaks down. Now it turns out empathy is a good tool to limit inner-tribal fighting and promote cooperation. As a result social groups emerge and are sustained. Empathy may or may not be a result of evolution, but empathy is not the same as morality. Morality is a byproduct of empathy. Education brings about the understanding and reasoning. Ideas that some kids are witchesand the cause of crops failure and must be killed and other irrational beliefs are defeated by education. In this way what was thought of moral (killing kids who are declared to be witches) is then viewed as immoral. Pro asks "If I told you I was going to kill you, who has the right to say that I am wrong to say that. How could societies possible decide their morals. " There are cases where killing me would be seen as immoral and other cases where it would be well within the moral framework. Now I must ask this god from which Pro asserts that morals come from, can it interact in human affairs? Does it? The anemic definition of "God" notes only that it is all powerful, how does power equate to morality? Is the god Pro asserts as the giver of morals also moral? One last question for Pro, given the definitions of "right" and "wrong" is it possible that a singular action can be both? It would seem to me that Pro has yet to make a case that morality can only exists if there is a moral giver and that this moral giver must be all powerful. I hope Pro better spends his time putting forth an argument for his case before he attacks arguments that I have not made.
Without God, there is no morals

Let me define. God as a all powerful being. Now, here is my argument. Atheists claim that morals come from Evolution, but that still does not explain why it is bad. If I kill someone, why is it bad. Evolutionists usually claim that it is evolution urge to protect people so that we will get it in return, but that does not explain rape or other sexual crimes. I know I'm not explaining this well, but let me say this. If I told you I was going to kill you, who has the right to say that I am wrong to say that. How could societies possible decide their morals.
Without God, there is no morals

Pro states "I will be going from the perspective that the person defines his or her own morals. " It would seem that Con agrees with this statement. It is Con's view that morals arise from empathy and education within the self, and that this has no need of a god. Con Asks that "God" be defined by Pro Without "God" defined Con can not address Pro's claim " Society is based on the largest accepted moral system of it contributors and/or rulers. " It is unclear how this statement supports the proposition.
Without God, there is no morals

I will be debating whether morals would have to come from God. Definitions. Morals, the divide between right and wrong. Right being something that is considered good or helpful and Wrong being something that is considered bad or hurtful I will be going from the perspective that the person defines his or her own morals. Society is based on the largest accepted moral system of it contributors and/or rulers. If the society is a dictatorship or other government-centered society, than the morals still come from the people who make it up.
Without God, there is no morals

I understand that life does happen. I recently missed a debate post as well. "I believe you think that each person decides his/her own morals, but there are problems with this." I do and I look forward to clearing up your perceived problems. Sadly What I think the voters and I were really looking forward to is how one gets from a being is all-powerful therefore it is the giver of moral absolutes. "If I decide my own morals, can I not decide to have no morals." Pro asks. Well given that I noted morals come from education and empathy and those 2 qualities while variable, they are not variable by the self. Meaning that one cannot choose how empathetic they will be nor can one decide what they will or will not learn. "How are parents to have their kids obey them if they (the parents) have no control over morals. If god did exist, than this problem would not exist. God gave the ultimate morals, government enforces it, than parents." Parents could talk to their kids and actually explain why a given action is bad. Given that ideas on morality have in different cultures have been taught differently and thus a wide variety of behaviors have been considered moral and/or immoral depending on culture. It would seems that inconsistencies across cultures and time are problematic for your idea that God is the ultimate moral giver and that the government and parents are the enforcers thereof. "You claim that this shows morals through education and empathy, but this shows how your idea is flawed. If the idea of morals is changeable between people, than no one could rule over someone else or tell them what to do because their morals are no better than anyone else's." Similar empathy with the same cultural education will yield similar results. It is not flawed. I have indicated that with more education one can see their previous actions as immoral where at the earlier time they did not. I have no idea how you get from morality to implications over political power. "Last statement Morals must come from a god because otherwise everyone could do what they want and not be in the wrong." I shall requote Jim Butcher "No one is an unjust villain in his own mind. Even - perhaps even especially - those who are the worst of us. Some of the cruelest tyrants in history were motivated by noble ideals, or made choices that they would call 'hard but necessary steps' for the good of their nation. We're all the hero of our own story." There is no reason given for the claim that morals come from an all-powerful being, which is the only quality that Pro defined the idea "God" as, nor is there reason to think this being actually exists.
Without God, there is no morals

I am sorry for missing the last round, I was without Internet for a while. Now, on to the debates. God Once again, I have stated that which god is pointless due to the other side being illogical. You ask if an all powerful being implies morals, but as it stands, you cannot debate the moralistic views of a god, so we assume yes, perfect morals exist to the god. Situations You have stated that depending on the situation along with prior education and empathy allows morals to be decided. However, this does not explain why it is wrong or how each of us decide that. I asked if I said I was going to kill you, who has the right to tell me I am immoral at which you claim that if I was shown that I was misguided in my reasons to kill you and/or depending on the situation It may be moral to kill you. Because of this, I believe you think that each person decides his/her own morals, but there are problems with this. Problems with personal morals 1. They can be minimal/nonexistent If I decide my own morals, can I not decide to have no morals. I could kill, rape, steal anyone or anything I want. If I decide the morals, than these morals have to be right. How can someone tell me otherwise if each person makes their own morals? You have ignored the fact that this sets up a power problem. How are parents to have their kids obey them if they (the parents) have no control over morals. If god did exist, than this problem would not exist. God gave the ultimate morals, government enforces it, than parents. 2. Last statement In your side, you claim that empathy and education lets you decide morals for yourself. However, in your last statement you spoke of how few people would find me killing an intruder immoral, but from a view of a cop it might be different. You claim that this shows morals through education and empathy, but this shows how your idea is flawed. If the idea of morals is changeable between people, than no one could rule over someone else or tell them what to do because their morals are no better than anyone else's. 3. Movable line Morals are basically a line that shows where we should never cross. One side is bad and one side is good. But without a god giving definite lines that should not be crossed. Just look at the modern society. Fifty years ago, abortions were terrible things, gays were not open, kids respected their parents. Now, in not debating if these things are right or not, but look at it now. The country's moral lines how moved unbelievable. What is the point of morals if they conform to what you are doing or want. It doesn't work that way. Last statement Morals must come from a god because otherwise everyone could do what they want and not be in the wrong.
Without God, there is no morals

I loosely defined God due to the fact that I am going to show that proper morals have to come from somewhere, regardless which god. I am I Christian, so I go with the Christian God. You have stated that with internal education and self empathy does someone find morals. However, if this is true, than everyone makes their own morals, making it hard for justice to exist. If I decide killing someone is moral, who is to say different. You answered this with stating that in some cases it might be moral, but that does not explain. If everyone does what is moral to them, than who can say it is wrong. You decides which morals are above other peoples. If I decide to kill someone, who can say that is wrong if I have my morals and they have theirs.
Electoral College

Since my opponent wants me to "present my case", my first argument will be in this round. To be fair to my opponent, I will skip the last round to keep equal debating rounds. If I am wrong, please tell me. I. Unequal Attention to Swing States "They [candidates] spend time in large "swing states," or states where the outcome is uncertain. Almost all small states are ignored. "[1] Why? Because smaller states have fewer delegates. In addition, it is easier to sway swing states than it is in one-party states. Swing states will define a presidential election. "Due to the unit rule, competitive big states have far more electoral votes in play, meaning that a shift of 1,000 votes in a big state can result in a far greater gain in electoral votes than a comparable swing of 1,000 votes in a small state. "[2] If California and Wyoming are swing states, California will be worth 18 times more, ergo they campaign in California, and never Wyoming. So even if small states are swing states, they still won't be visited. "Of the 18 states with the smallest populations, 10 experienced absolutely no television ads or candidate visits with public events during the peak season of 2008 campaigns. Eleven of the 12 smallest states did not have a single campaign visit. "[2] As shown, smaller states receive little, if any attention. II. A Minority-Vote President "The Electoral College system can result in the election of a "minority" president who has received fewer popular votes than a principal opponent but more electoral college votes. The Electoral College system has in the past led to the election of three "minority" presidents, namely, National Republican John Quincy Adams in 1824, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and Republican Benjamin Harrison in 1888. "[3] The Electoral College can elect a popular-minority president. Simple math can be used to show how if necessary. ï¿½"'If 60,000 votes had switched from Bush to [Sen. John] Kerry in Ohio, Kerry would have won the election, even though Bush would have had a majority of the vote,' by 2.5 million votes. "[1] There have also been several close calls. That's a 2.5 million people swing. That can really change the vote. Sources: [1]:. http://www.christianpost.com... [2]:. http://www.fairvote.org... [3]:. http://www.elections.alaska.gov...
Abortion is morally right

Having a child is a great joy to many, but there is no denying that it is also very troublesome and expensive which is why I don"t think anyone should be forced to do it if they don"t really want to. Moreover, those who aren"t even mature and responsible enough to use contraceptives properly clearly wouldn"t be able to handle having a child. Not only is being forced to carry out a pregnancy distressing for the parents, but the child also suffers and as abortion prevents this suffering it must be right.
Abortion is morally right

The world population is increasing and it is increasing fast: at the start of the 20th century there were 1.65 billion people on Earth, but by 1999 the number had reached 6 billion. Only twelve years later, in 2011, we reached the 7 billion mark and now we"re closing in on 7.3 billion. I am by no means suggesting that we randomly kill every second infant to control the overpopulation; I am merely saying that we should consider it thoroughly and make an informed decision about whether it is wise, or even fair, to let a lump of cells develop into a child, if the parents are not able to care for this potential child. Off course there are other people who wish for a child and who would be more than able to care for whichever hypothetical child is being aborted. They would be equally able to care for a thousand other children who are being born to parents as unable to take care of their child, but who live in poorer parts of the world where safely aborting an embryo is simply not an option. Why should the cells with the potential to be a child be more important than children who are already born, who are already living human beings? They are not the same, they are not equally important. Claiming that aborting an embryo, a lump of cells with the potential to become a child, equals actually killing a child is as outrageous as claiming that masturbation is genocide because it kills millions of sperm cells that had the potential to become children, but now never will. You said that abortion goes against the natural order and is a crime against the law of God, but I believe that our enormous and shameless exploitation and abuse of the Earth, of this poor, tormented nature, goes more against the natural order than abortion ever could and that, I believe, is the greatest crime of all.
Abortion is morally right

You claim that abortion is wrong, as the purpose of mankind is to populate and fill the Earth. The thing is, though: the Earth is full. We are almost 7.3 billion people on this Earth, which is causing numerous societal and environmental problems. Even the pope, God's representative on Earth, calls for people to exercise "responsible parenthood" instead of behaving "like rabbits". Not only does the Earth not need populating, it's actually overpopulated and therefore your point about a need to fill the Earth is simply not valid. Moreover, you state that as societies throughout time have believed abortion to be wrong, it must be so. I won't argue with your point about societies believing that, as I too think they have believed that. That's not the only silly thing societies throughout time have believed: they have also believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe, that women were inferior to men and that it was acceptable and even desirable to own another human being. Just because "societies have since time immemorial" held a certain belief, it doesn't make that belief a fact. Abortion is a way to not only regulate some of the overpopulation, but to make sure that children are not born to parents who do not wish to care for them and are not able to love them. It is a way to make sure that women won't have to endure the trials of carrying and giving birth to a child, won't have pay the immense hospital bill from the pregnancy and childbirth, and won"t be encumbered by children that they wish didn't exist. Because of abortion women will not have their lives ruined by unwanted children and children will not be born with the pain of knowing that they are unwanted and as such I cannot see any harm in abortions. Sources: http://www.overpopulation.org... http://www.worldometers.info... http://www.catholicnews.com...
Abortion is morally right

God created human beings to multiply and fill the earth. That would be realized through giving birth. therefore by encouraging abortion ll be going against such natural order. there can never be a justification to abortion, this i because societies have since time immemorial condemned the act of aborting. it goes to the very root of morality. those that have undergone abortion are labelled to be immoral by the society and to some extend considered as outcasts. this therefore begs the question, do we want to nature a society characterized with such immorality?.... abortion is a crime against the law of God and therefore it cannot be justified whatsoever.
Right Wing Governments, In General, Are Less Moral Than Left Wing Governments

I know this round isn't the place for rebuttals, but I have one thing I need to say about a point my opponent made.1) After doing some research, I came to remember something the the Nazis. The word Nazi means Nationalsozialismus, or National Socialism (1). Nazism, is a Left-Winged to Central-Winged government, explaining the hatred Hitler had for Far-Right winged Fascism. Nazism is a form of Socialism (2).Any socialist would cringe to hear this. Nazism isn't remotely similar to any form of socialism. In Nazi Germany, there was no universal welfare, there was no government provided anything. And the idea that Hitler hated fascism is completely ridiculous. Explain, if you will, his alliance with fascist Italy and Japan? Why did he help overthrow the left-wing government of Spain, to establish Franco's fascist regime? Can you explain the numerous fascist puppet governments set up by the Nazis throughout Europe? I mean no offense to you, but this entire claim is utterly ridiculous in every way, and I'm sad I even need to point any of this out. The rumor that Nazism is a form of socialism is just propaganda spread by the right wing to make socialists look bad. Call out Stalin all you want, but stay factual.Now, back to my closing statements.Throughout this debate, I have given examples of the evils of right wing governments, both in modern times and the past. As my opponent says, these evils are not exclusive to right wing governments, but attrocities were committed more often throughout history, or even throughout the last hundred years, by right wing ideologies such as fascism, Nazism, and other dictatorships, as well as more moderate right wing democracies and monarchies. Examples such as the Holocaust, the Mayan Genocide in Guatemala, Apartheid in South Africa, the Rape of Nanking by Japanese soldiers, and slavery throughout the world cannot be ignored.Have left wing governments done immoral things? Of course, what government hasn't? But that isn't the purpose of this debate. The topic is that right wing governments, in general, are less moral. As my opponent pointed out frequently, morality can be relative, but by generally accepted standards, certain things are truly immoral.Thanks to donald.keller for debating this topic with me, and good luck with future debates!
Right Wing Governments, In General, Are Less Moral Than Left Wing Governments

For the purpose of this debate, the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, as well as the various "Communist" countries in Asia and Latin America can be considered left-wing. While I do not personally believe they were ever really socialist at all, and just claiming to be for most of their existence. That's besides the point though.I'm arguing that in general, right wing governments are less moral than left wing ones. Con is arguing that left wing governments are less moral.The Rules:1) Round 1 is for acceptance only. Rounds 2-4 are for arguments. Round 5 is for closing statements.2) Don't try and use semantics to get an easy win, I've seen people try to.3) Religious arguments are invalid.4) If you came to troll, go somewhere else.Good luck to whoever accepts!
Gay marriage

It is true that married couples get rights, but with rights comes responsibilty. Most of the rights they have aren't even that big of a deal. Most of the information can be found here, . http://en.wikipedia.org... I'm pretty sure that if you marry an American you still have to go through the legal process. My uncle (from England) married my aunt and he had to get a green card and do all that still. My stance is it should be legal for everybody, or nobody. You can't grant some individuals one right but not others because they don't like someone of the opposite gender. Since marriage wont be taken out any time soon, gay marriage should be legalized. I agree that everyone should have the same opportunity for happiness and if strait marriage is legal, gay marriage also should be too. Some other links that may be interesting: . http://www.catholiceducation.org... . http://nofo.blogspot.com...