BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Miracles are Possible

What is Natural Law?"Since Natural Law is, by its very nature, an inductive generalization of whatever occurs, than for an event to be a violation of a law of nature is non-sense."As we can agree, scientific laws are really only generalizations that we humans make. When a ball is dropped, it bounces. However, one can only predict that the ball will bounce because of previous attempts made. Since we cannot be certain what will happen to an object when we do something to it, it is impossible to justify the outcome of any situation. My opponent is supposing that Natural Law is just and cannot be violated, but as we have seen, what we believe to be Natural Law can be proven wrong (refer to my Round 2 argument). In this sense, we have really not discovered Natural Law. We have not identified any laws that are absolute everywhere, every time in the universe. So for something to violate a generalization, or best guess, is completely appropriate. If you flip a coin a thousand times, and it lands on heads every time, that chance that it will land on tails the next time is not eradicated. The chance still exists, no matter how many times you flip it. The only way to prove that it will not land on tails is to flip it an infinite number of times. Since we cannot test a 'law' an infinite number of times, the possibility of the law being wrong still exists, as does having that coin land on tails."If indeed there was on omniscient being who knew with certainty the precise formulations of natural laws that describe and bind our universe then he would know whether an event would or would not be actually possible given the laws of nature that he himself created." "For the god of theism to be forced to operate outside the formulations of the creation he begot is in itself illogical."The god of theism (omniscient, omnipotent) would, by definition, have the ability to make exceptions to the laws he creates. By making laws he is not bound by them, neither is he forced to obey them, because there is nothing above him that would enforce him to do so. God would be able to alter the laws for an instance because the laws are bound by him, not the other way around. Think of it as him being the author of a novel. The events and characters in the book are under his control. Neither the characters nor the events force the author to do anything, because he is in control and can alter the events if he wants to. My opponent's argument is that if miracles are possible, then they are certain. My argument is that if miracles are possible, they have the chance of existing, not the absolute certainty of existing. The nature of a miracle is outside natural laws, like how grammar is nonexistent outside the English language.
Miracles are Possible

My opponent has opened with a position that I feel is fairly irrelevant to the topic, but I will counter. Our modern day approach to Natural Law is that of Description not Prescription (as Newton believed), not that Natural law can't be used to forecast events or outcomes, but our sense of Natural Law is never so concrete or concise as to be beyond reproach or reformulation under the weight of observations. An event cannot be simply dismissed because it is not explainable in the general pattern of events. The "Laws of Nature" are not laws in the concrete sense, instead they are inductive generalizations. At first glance this would seem to bolster my opponents position. But one only needs to pull back a few layers to see that my opponents position is not logically sound. Since Natural Law is, by its very nature, an inductive generalization of whatever occurs, than for an event to be a violation of a law of nature is non-sense. The event would simply enter our realm of consideration and inductive study. It is logically incoherent for any event to violate Natural Law. One must look past the "violation of natural law" argument and ask the question is it possible for an event to naturally occur? All a scientist can logically say is if an event is naturally impossible. Is a miracle naturally impossible? Yes, because it cannot be produced by nature causes, and because it lye outside the realm of natural cause it is therefore naturally impossible. Then this moves us to the logical question... is a miracle logically impossible?? If indeed there was on omniscient being who knew with certainty the precise formulations of natural laws that describe and bind our universe then he would know whether an event would or would not be actually possible given the laws of nature that he himself created. The only answer that would logically suffice the topic of whether miracles are possible or logical, is that there is the existence of the personal god of theism. For the god of theism to be forced to operate outside the formulations of the creation he begot is in itself illogical. Why would the god of theism create a universe which would require his own supernatural intervention in order to conduct his own will? However, the possibility or impossibility of miracles relies solely on the existence of the personal god of theism.
Miracles are Possible

Main Arguments Scientific laws are only assumed true through repetition. No finite number of attempts can show that a law is applicable for every case in the universe. For example, long before Australia was discovered, it was believed in the West that all swans in the world were white. But when Europeans landed in Australia, they saw, for the first time, a black swan. What was considered a scientifically violable truth before had to be withdrawn. Let's look at another example. When Newton published his laws about the universe, they were regarded as incontrovertibly true for almost two centuries. They worked very well, and were endorsed as irrefutable. Then, Einstein's theories of relativity contradicted Newton. Despite common belief, Newton's laws were proved in important ways to be wrong or at least inadequate. However, these laws could be, in the future, proved erroneous yet again. By this we learn that Einstein's theories have the capability to be proved wrong and are therefore, not completely true, but our "best guess".So how are scientific laws verifiable? They aren't. As we have seen above, scientific laws are our best guess of what we know about the universe. In this respect we realize miracles are possible because science itself does not verify what each instance will turn out to be. It only assumes what will happen based on previous tries. In his book What's So Great About Christianity, D'Souza writes that "scientific laws are not 'laws of nature.' They are human laws, and they represent a form of best-guessing about the world. What we call laws are nothing more than observed patterns and sequences. We think the world works in this way until future experience proves the contrary."[1] By this we determine that "An effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."[2] cannot be shown by science to be impossible. Through science we find that miracles are improbable, but not impossible.How do know that light travels 186,000 miles per second? We measure it. But just because it's that speed one time, ten times, or a billion times, does not mean that it's that speed every time everywhere. Miracles aren't 99.9% likely, or even 50% likely, because there could be 20 billion cases where a scientific law could be wrong versus 10 billion cases that it is.Another contention I have is that: if miracles by this definition are possible, then there must be a supernatural. In that respect, wouldn't the supernatural have complete control over science? If we assume the Christian God for example, how would he be bound by something he devised? He would have the power to alter the laws of nature if he chooses to, which are the very point of miracles themselves. Sources1. D'Souza, Dinesh. What's so Great about Christianity. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2007. Print.2. http://dictionary.reference.com.........
The Bible is Fictional Literature

What does it mean, to be an invented story? I would say, any story a particular person came up with. I would say, anything written or said without a factual basis is fiction, regardless of its truth. For, the author had no real way of knowing. If they invented an explanation for a physical phenomenon, without backing it up with facts, they created a work of fiction, regardless of the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of the statements within.I will not be arguing that the Bible is full of lies. I will not be arguing that the Bible is full of falsehoods. I will be arguing that the Bible is fiction because it a a collection of invented explanations for how the world around them existed in the way it did.What makes a fact a fact? Why do we consider them stronger, better, than ideas? We know they are true. For the same reason many deny evolution on the grounds of "its just a theory", something we know is better than something we think. we can prove facts, and that is why they are so special.Now, back to the Bible. The Bible is sporadically filled, usually in the Old Testament, with assertions that have been disproven. The majority of the rest is unprovable either way. For example: Was Jesus the son of God? Despite strong beliefs one might have one way or the other, both sides are as of yet unprovable. It is for this reason that the Bible should be considered fiction. Not because it is false; but because it is unprovable.The major flaw to my argument is the rest of the Bible. As I said before, the Bible is sporadically filled with falsehoods, and the majority of the rest is unprovable either way. Left are two categories. The first is the yet to be proved. For example, before Yuri Gagarin, no man had been in space, and it was at that point yet to be proven whether or not there was a firmament separating the air from the waters above as is said in Genesis 1:6-7. (I chose the firmament as an example to show the fate of these parts of the Bible: they will be proven one way or the other.) These unproven statements will diminish with time, and eventually, will all be gone.The last portion of the Bible are the proven parts. They present a danger to my argument in the eyes of many, but can be dealt with aptly, as I will show. To do so, I will use an example of fictional literature which also has true parts: Rick Riordan's series Percy Jackson and the Olympians. For those who have not read it, it records the adventures of the characters of ancient Greek mythology (Apollo, Zeus, Poseidon, etc) in the modern United States of America. Anyways, the appearance of real objects, places, and people in this story does not make it nonfiction. The series mentions the Gates of Hades lying at the Hollywood Sign. The sign exists, Hades does not. I have made my point.
The Bible is Fictional Literature

Self Explanatory. Structure: R1: Acceptance R2: Opening Arguments R3: Rebuttals R4:Rebuttals R5:Closing Statements (No new arguments or refutations) Definitions: FICTION: 1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story THE BIBLE: the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. (specifically, I will be using the KJV) By accepting this, Con will take the argument that the Bible is not a work of fiction.
Charlie Sheen

>>>>But his lifestyle has taken a turn for the worse -So? She lists no impact of the show from a worse lifestyle, have the ratings gone down?-no, Has his acting been affected?-no. He still does his job >>>>The way he is behaving outside the show -Again, no impact on the show's performance >>>> talking negatively about his coworkers who also provide his paycheck he should be fired -She talks as if he is the only person in the world who talks smack about his co-workers. He's not, almost everyone hates their boss and a few co-workers. This is not unique to him >>>>Why should he get paid 2million a show and be able to continue to bash the people who pay him? -Because he is a good worker, and deserves his pay
Not All Children Should Have to Learn a Second Language

Kids will need to learn how to do things they don't like, but they get that everyday in school or in the outside world. Plus, you need to start early when learning a new language. And I know that they'll use this later on, but YOU CAN'T FORCE THEM TO LEARN A NEW LANGUAGE. I can't stress this enough. You can take them to classes and make them do it as homework, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to learn it. Everyone knows that they'll use it sooner or later in life, but you won't learn something you don't want to learn. Some kids are also limited in their minds and brains. They have trouble more than usual in studies. Let's first get the basics down and then try something new. They have a choice.
Not All Children Should Have to Learn a Second Language

There will always be something in life that you don't want to do. Children must be taught that they can't just turn away from something that is too hard or unpleasant. They also need to understand that while this may be unpleasant, it will help them down the road. You should see this as any other subject that children may struggle with, an necessary evil. They can also implement tools that can make learning another language easier or even fun.
Not All Children Should Have to Learn a Second Language

I know they should, but there are always conditions: to do something, you may have to let another thing go. It also depends on their feelings: Do they want to do it? Will they reject it? You can't force someone to jump off a cliff without violence or anger. Making someone learn a second language will be forcing them off a cliff. They won't enjoy it so don't make them do it. It may be best if the children do learn a second language. I agree with you there, but I don't think that it should be a have instead of a want. They must have time, effort, patience, and care about it. If they don't have time then when are they going to do it? If they don't try, how are they going to learn it? If they're not patient with it, it'll become to frustrating. If they don't bother, then they're never going to learn it. These four things must line up in order to learn a new language.
Not All Children Should Have to Learn a Second Language

I think that children should have to learn a second language because it may benefit them later. They may not realize how much it can help them For example, if you speak Spanish, then you can communicate with 80 percent of the people in the world. Spanish is the most spoken second language. (http://www.pewresearch.org...). America is a brewing pot of many different cultures, so having the children learn a second language will help them communicate when it really matters. It may not seem fun to them now, but when they become older they will be lucky.
Not All Children Should Have to Learn a Second Language

A lot of kids are being forced to take second languages when they don't want to. I don't think children should be made to take a second language because it might be really hard for them, and they may hate it and won't understand it. Learning another language can take up a lot of time, too. If a child is struggling in a subject or busy with homework or extra curricular activities, they won't have time to learn another language. Plus, they haven't fully learned the English language of writing, reading, and speaking. If they did, they wouldn't have to learn it in school. Also, if you make someone do something unwillingly, chances are they won't enjoy it and won't bother to work at it. They'd be wasting their time doing nothing.
High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

I strongly affirm the resolution, high school pfd topics should not confront sensitive religious issues. The definition for sensitive religious issues in this round is any topic that directly deals with any organized religion or system of belief. My first contention is freedom of religion. In the US, people have the freedom to exercise religion as they see fit. This also means they have the right to not have their religion attacked and/or have to attack it themselves in a debate round. My second contention is the seperation of church and state. This seperation also applies to schools in the US. We are not allowed to teach religion in schools, we should not be forced to debate it either. My third contention is cultural sensitivity. Debating topics such as the original November topic can lead to Islam being portrayed in America as a hateful religion and "the bad guys". This can lead to hate crimes against Muslims, which takes away American Muslims first amendment rights to safely exercise their religion. For these reasons I strongly urge an affirmative ballot.
High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

Although the resolution addresses Public Forum debate, the structure of this debate shall not be in its form. Instead, it will be simplified to: Round 1 PRO - Definitions Introduced & Case Presented (Defining "sensitive religious issues" is up to you, my dear adversary.) Round 2 NEG - Case Presented & Rebuttal Round 2 PRO - Case Presented & Rebuttal Round 3 NEG - Rebuttal/Conclusion Round 3 PRO - Rebuttal/Conclusion Thanks for accepting, and good luck! Oh, and a quick reminder: "Public Forum" is a debate format that resembles fusion of LD and Policy. It's one of the debate forms utilized in the NFL (National Forensics League - the nation's largest Speech & Debate organization) tournaments. More info: http://wiki.pfdebate.com...
Do u believe that Gun Control and a ban on assault rifles will solve the problem of gun crime

I took my opponent's challenge and explained how a new gun control measure would drastically reduce gun crime. I also refuted their limited arguments to the contrary. My opponent viewed my arguments, but then opted to forfeit the debate. My opponent was the instigator, but neither attacked my arguments nor defended their own; thus, my arguments stand unchallenged and their arguments stand refuted. The only logical vote is in my favor. Thank you for reading this debate! :)
Do u believe that Gun Control and a ban on assault rifles will solve the problem of gun crime

My ArgumentsStrict gun control laws would solve the problem of gun crime. I will discuss a hypothetical constitutional amendment that bans the sale and possession of firearms within the United States of America and its territories, under penalty of death or life in prison. There would be a few exemptions, such as the military. There would also be a transition period where some would be exempted (security guards) and penalties would be less severe.Given the above, it would no longer be in a person's self-interest to buy a gun, carry a gun, or commit a crime with it--unless they were willing to forfeit their lives in the process. I assert that many criminals do not wish to forfeit their own lives. Additionally, even some law-abiding citizens who value either their own lives or providing for their family would acquiesce. Therefore, we would expect to see a sharp reduction in gun crime (and an increase in the use of other weapons, such as knives).Rebuttal to Opponents Arguments: anyone can murder someone with a knife: explain to me how banning guns is going to help its mental health Many of your statements are off-topic. The topic you chose is whether gun control can solve gun crime. : the Newtown shooter.. murdered those kids with pistols Those guns would be illegal following the proposed gun ban. : in columbine all there guns were bought illegally The shotguns were bought at a gun show--which would no longer exist following the gun ban. The pistol was bought for $500 from a pizza shop employee. If the penalty for gun possession or sale were death or life in prison, it's highly unlikely that person would have sold that gun for $500. : you can easily get full automatic weapons on the street than in a store : a kid in my town was murdered by an illegal tech 9 which was fully automatic : its extremely hard to get guns in in California yet the crime rate is extremely high You say that fully automatic weapons are easily available to criminals despite being mostly banned. First, only 2% of investigated violent crimes in California in 2009 were committed with fully automatic weapons[1]. I have seen similar or lower numbers for other places in America. The Batman, Aurora, and Sandy Hook killers did not use fully automatic weapons. This support limited access and the long-term effectiveness of banning guns.Second, the proposed amendment would further reduce the number of fully automatic weapons available on the black market. There would be no more legal owners to steal from and fewer semi-automatic weapons to convert.If the proposed ban does as well as the fully automatic weapons ban, we may be looking at gun crime rates at 1% of current levels! That's what I call "solving the problem of gun crime". Dear readers, please vote Pro. :) [1] http://oag.ca.gov...
Do u believe that Gun Control and a ban on assault rifles will solve the problem of gun crime

a background check law and they see your latest actions your stability to own a weapon a gun safety test i should know i had to go through all test before i could buy my weapons to protect myself from are corrupt government i think banning assault rifles and banning high cap mags will do nothing anyone can murder someone with a knife the same day as the Newtown shooting a man brought a knife in and killed 17 kids we need more help with mental health more cuts from are blind government are taking place in mental facilities banning guns wont help you can easily get full automatic weapons on the street than in a store you guys say a machine guns assault rifles we need more protection on gun control thats not the problem in columbine all there guns were bought illegally i own ar-15s which all you liberals call an M16 there completely different ones only semi automatic and the m16 is fully automatic you liberals dont know the difference you think banding guns will solve the problem its extremely hard to get guns in in California yet the crime rate is extremely high a kid in my town was murdered by an illegal tech 9 which was fully automatic with the serial numbers removed impossible to get in my state legally so explain to me how banning guns is going to help its mental health we need help with an assault weapon is a fully automatic weapon this government has changed i around to the point of where if the clip has 30 round in it its an assault weapon thats not it machine guns are already banned an AR-15 is not a machine gun an MG-42 fully automatic german made LMG is a machine gun which is already banned. the hardest thing is to get a full automatic weapon in the united states you have to get certain permits aka a C3 license they are impossible to get in many states and you have to pay a tax stamp and go through a week long process to get it and in many states longer than a week and the mom of the Newtown shooter didn't own an ar-15 he murdered those kids with pistols everyone needs to know there facts before debating them