BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Teleological Argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

I accept Pro's debate, and will await him making the first argument. The resolution that he must support is that the Teleological Argument (the argument from Fine-Tuning or Design) has been refuted and should never be used again. If he fails to support one or both of those contentions, then he fails to win the debate.The form of the TAG I will be defending from Pro's attack will be the TAG commonly used by William Lane Craig:1) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.3) Therefore, it is due to design. [1]An alternate version that can be given is as follows:1) The universe resulted either from physical necessity, design, or chance.2) It is highly improbable that it resulted from physical necessity or chance.3) Therefore, it is highly probable that the universe was designed. [2]Using the guarding terms "highly improbable" and "highly probable" make the argument a little easier to support. Since it is very difficult to prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt, it can be shown that God's existence (due to the fine-tuning of the universe) is more probable than his not existing.Considering that different forms of the TAG has existed since at least the time of the early Greek's (though it was popularized by Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274)) [3], it is highly unlikely that Pro has some new evidence that would refute it completely and suggest that it should never be used again.With that, I will await Pro's argument as to why the TAG should be done away with and used no more. I will make my opening argument to support the TAG in the next round (and rebuttals if I have space in that round).*NB: It seems that by linking to a video in my footnote, the video will appear in the argument. I do not expect anyone to watch the entire video (though it is quite interesting, should you wish to watch it anyway). You only need to watch about 20 seconds in to see the argument in question.[1] http://www.youtube.com...[2] Norm L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, 2000, p. 718.[3] ibid., p. 714.
The illuminate is real and they are trying to minipulate us.

Well, this is rather annoying. I can see on Pro's profile that she was online yesterday, but I suppose there is nothing I can do about it. Pro needed to prove that the Illuminati was real to uphold the burden of proof required to affirm this resolution. Since Pro hasn't presented any arguments, there is nothing for me to rebut. Due to this, I will present my own arguments negating the resolution.I. Foundation and Ban of the Bavarian IlluminatiThere is alot of hogwash surrounding the Illuminati and whether it is playing a secret hand in the shaping of our world. As an active Freemason though, I can assure you that there is no such thing as the Illuminati in our modern world. Instead, what we are seeing is a collection of powerful individuals influencing the modern laws and world utilizing their influence and control. Some could view the owners of the news stations as members of the illuminati, but in reality they are nothing more than rich individuals who have the power to influence. The reason why the term illuminati is so convenient is because in its modern context it seems to cover exactly what these people are doing, but in reality they are not part of an Illuminati. The convenience of the term has misguided the people who believe such things. The association of which I have been speaking, is the order of Illuminati, founded in 1775, by Dr. Adam Weishaupt, professor of Canon law in the university of Ingolstadt, and abolished in 1786 by the Elector of Bavaria. The professed goal of the Bavarian Illuminati was to teach people to be happy by encouraging them to be good - by illuminating the mind and freeing it from prejudice and superstition. Thus, even the context of the modern illuminati has no grounds to stand upon when compared to the original Bavarian illuminati. [1]There have been many claims that the Illuminati survived underground, but the burden to prove that falls on Pro, not myself. [1] http://www.bavarianilluminati.com...II. Pro has presented nothing to affirm the resolution yetNormally, this is where I'd present rebuttals against the claims presented by Pro. Unfortunately, Pro has done nothing of the sort. I would like to ask the audience to please take into consideration the multiple forfeits of Pro once this debate enters the voting period. In closing, I've presented an accurate history regarding the original Bavarian Illuminati, as well as show the faults in associating the modern conception of the illuminati with the original. I now return the floor to Pro.Thank you
The US , Afghanistan, and Bhutan should establish a Opium Corporation

I. US and capitalismMy opponent needs to relook at the companies he just listed. Over half of them provide no public service, and about 16 of them are for profit. Take for example our federal morgage companies, loan banks, and overseas financing firms. These are 100% for profit, and designed to make the US money. This contention is outright ridicolous. We are not restricted from running corporations that make the government money, as long as we don't restrict those markets for other people.II. Opium is a narcoticThis is something the opposition falsely stated several times. Opium is used in heroin, just like Mo1 is used in coke, and methane is a chemical component of methamphetamine. These things are not illegal, because they serve other practical functions. This point should not be taken seriously.Not to mention he dropped my point on the US completely ending the heroin trade.III. Confusion between opium and poppiesSeriously? We are talking about opium poppies, not all different archtypes. In fact, Afghanistan and Bhutan are the 2 largest opium producers in the world after 2009, which is why they get the shares. Their are about 4 other countries with the capabilities to make it, but they have banned production due to drug siphoning. As you can see, Afghanistan produces about 90% of the worlds opium, as it's one of few nations with the capabilities to make it. Medicinal demand could make the opium trade a projected 100 billion dollars internationally. IV. Conclusion By nationalizing the opium trade, we can stop the heroin trade, make 10's of billions in dollars, and meet medicinal demand that has been craving opium medicine for decades. Afghanistan is the only nation right now with the capabilities to meet the vast demand for this product, and the US is the only nation with the resources to get the ball rolling.
The US , Afghanistan, and Bhutan should establish a Opium Corporation

Opium itself is:a reddish-brown heavy-scented addictive drug prepared from the juice of the opium poppy, used as a narcotic and in medicine as an analgesic.[1] It should be known that in fact you are in the favor of the government control of the Poppy plant, in all forms."The federal government chartered and owned corporations are a set of corporations chartered and owned by the federal government, which operate to provide public services, but unlike the federal agencies (Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs), or the federal independent commissions (e.g., the Federal Communications Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, etc.), they have a separate legal personality from the federal government, providing the highest level of political independence. They sometimes receive federal budgetary appropriations, but some also have independent sources of revenue. These include :Commodity Credit CorporationCorporation for National and Community Service (Americorps)Corporation for Public BroadcastingExport-Import Bank of the United StatesFederal Agricultural Mortgage CorporationFarm Credit BanksFederal Crop Insurance CorporationFederal Financing BankFederal Home Loan BanksFederal Prison IndustriesThe Financing CorporationGallaudet UniversityGovernment National Mortgage AssociationLegal Services CorporationNational Consumer Cooperative BankNational Fish and Wildlife FoundationNeighborhood Reinvestment CorporationMillennium Challenge CorporationNational Corporation for Housing Partnerships (NCHP); Washington, D.C.National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity FacilityNational Endowment for DemocracyNational Park FoundationNational Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as AmtrakOverseas Private Investment CorporationPanama Canal CommissionPennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation; Washington, D.C.Pension Benefit Guaranty CorporationSt. Lawrence Seaway Development CorporationSecurities Investor Protection CorporationTennessee Valley Authorityndsa-gov.net United States National Data Security Agency"[2]Even though the United States my not be a pure capitalist nation and in fact does have government owned corporations it owns them to provide public services to the people, i.e. transportation, banking, perservation, etc. This does not include corporations that produce narcotics and other luxury items.In your argument you stated that the United Stated wouldn hold a 45% stake in the corporation. The production of the Poppy plant for the creation of narcotics such as Heroine and Opium is entirely against the US federal drug policy[3]. Poppy production is largely done outside of the above discussed countries[4], so why should they control it? [1]dictionary.reference.com/browse/opium www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opium www.thefreedictionary.com/opium [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://www.factfish.com...
The US , Afghanistan, and Bhutan should establish a Opium Corporation

I. Opposition on capitalismAs pointed out in the comments, Con is most likely trolling my debate. None the less, I will answer it anyways. Holding nationally owned companies does not make a country "socialist", and even if it did, the US is not constitutionally bound to be pure capitalist, which it isn't anyways. Besides this terrible contention, almost every nation on earth holds nationalized ot multi national corporations. Currently, the US holds around 21 federal owned businesses, which include Amtrack and Kentucky mills and lumber. These are both for-profit. The government should be viewed as an elected corporation. Opium International would be one more in 20 other federally owned corporations. II. Opium movement off the charts After Afghanistan, Opium production went up 90% internationally. Which means heroin shipments to the US through Canada and Mexico sky rocketed. This sparked a international health crisis, as hundreds of thousands dropped out of the work force to inject heroin in their veins. Controlling opium production is very beneficial to the US, and given that we and the Afghanistan are being hurt the most, its in both nations best intrests. III. Controlling all the opium in the world is very profitable Opium is one of the most used recreational and medicinal drugs. 100's of medicines use opium, and licensing it racks in huge profits for the legalized producers in Afghanistan and Bhutan. The problem is that there are millions in Afghanistan who are leaching on the opium trade, without recieving licenses. This led to all but full closure of legalized opium production. If full nationalization of opium fields were to come into effect, then both nations would expierience 10's of billions in revenue. Commodity prices for Opium are at a all time high.
The US , Afghanistan, and Bhutan should establish a Opium Corporation

Con will go next roundMy resolution is that the US should form a Opium corporation with the Afghan government, using the Saudi Aramco model. For the prpose of this debate, we shall call it.....International Opium Co. The proposal will be as follows....- The nationalization of Afghan and Bhutani Opium fields- A 45% stake to the United States- A 45% stake to Afghanistan- A 10% stake to Bhutan.The multi national corporation will serve the purpose of controlling the opium trade, distributing opium throughout the world, and foremost, making money. Both nations will put down a monthly bloc, for the maintainment of expenses and security. I want my opponent to go first, so he may get all his complaints out in the open immediately. Failing to go next round will result in a automatic win for me. Good Luck!
Dragon is a viable word in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Any word that the Oxford English Dictionary enlists is one that has been proposed by a credible member of literacy and vernacular. It is subjected to one of many adjudicators who judge the viability of the word with the attached definition. If it passes a few or more of these professionally trained adjudicators it will be passed on to a man who makes a final judgement call as to whether or not the definition will suffice. Therefore, since the word dragon is clearly present, it exists.
Sun rotation causes the Earth's rotation | the Sun and Earth revolve each other.

As stated at the beginning, “it's impossible to collect evidence for what is transcendent”, but, “it's possible to sense the effect of the transcended nature in it's images”(referring to the image dei explained in the original post). The claims in the Quad Helix Theory (as explained in round 1) must fall under scrutiny. By lazy logic (Lazy; a reference to a short answer used to scrutinize a whole post and nature)., 'the burden of proof is on the one making the claims”, a greater truth and debate is obstructed. Con believes that it's science when “the burden of proof is on the one making the claims”, and that what I'm claiming isn't science for it cannot be proven through observation and experiment, and that is his argument- he will not scrutinize the Quad Helix theory. If I stand in a room of four symmetrical walls and a door, rest my head on the wall away from the door, and look directly at the door, I can verify by a wise sense of the room that I'm leaning on the wall the other side of the door, and that it exists. Of course, I cannot provide evidence for this “wise sense” of the wall, but it's logical- so before Con comes back with 'it's illogical if the burden of proof doesn't apply' and another low-effort response, I will put this logic out there, and again, ask con to scrutinize the original post. To further reinforce that example, I understand that the room itself can be taken as evidence, and we could experiment to determine that was the back wall; but the point I'm making is that a wise sense of my position in the room acts as a form of proof. Con is not looking for proof, he is looking for evidence of observation and experiment (adherence the the scientific method). Scrutinize the Quad Helix theory, and without lazy logic; and without lazily hanging onto accepted theories, when I have claimed to “redefine all of academia”, sense nature to resolve my claims. It would also help to apply the Quad Helix theory to nature to understand the criteria of my argument; such as “The Four Realms”, “The Quad Helix images”, etc.
Sun rotation causes the Earth's rotation | the Sun and Earth revolve each other.

"Con has failed to counter my argument reasonably, and instead has resorted to childish withdrawal tactics."So the one who uses logic and credible sources is childish, and the one who invents something out of thin air without any argument and is a wise man. I think it may be the opposite......." Knowledge, experience and good judgement mean nothing to him where science is concerned"Science is basically described with those words. Science seeks for knowledge, using experience and good judgement. However, what Pro is doing is preaching about his "theory" without any actual evidence more than his "wiseness". "Yes, had Sol power not been there, the Earth's mass wouldn't hold. Con's counter for the argument that the Sun causes the 'day-effect rotation' of Earth, was insufficient, and my argument against the current day stands."That's not true. The mass of the earth holds itself by gravity. That's how planets form, little rocks get together by gravitational attraction, nothing to do with the sun. And again, is the earth's rotation what causes days and nights, not the other way. If the earth stand still, there wouldn't be days and nights."When Con suggests that formulation of a spiral is not a power of four, he forgets the formulator, and instead focuses on the utility. He dismissed the fact that we can understand spirals through quadrant or quarter division, and focused on formulation."That's nonsense. I could use the same argument to support triple helix theory or dual helix theory or infinite helix theory. I can divide a spiral in three parts, in two parts, in infinite parts, but that doesn't prove anything." I imagine, although I have not checked, that the Golden Ratio is a power and fraction of four, as well as Pi."This demonstrates the lack of research and analysis of Pro. Pi and Phi and Tau and the square root of two and so on, all of those are irrational numbers, so they cannot be a fraction or power of four. "Apparently, Con, all the academic long-transcript of knowledge boycotts Quad Helix theory. That's because it's all Quad Helix-less, and therefore is wrong by reasonable, rational and sensible Quad Helix logic. "Here Pro is basically saying science can't disprove his theory, because they disprove his theory. This is circular thinking again."Con, try to not act childishly next round. It's three quarters your ego and a quarter discussing the day; you have no right to call me egotistical, just because yours has academic-support doesn't justify your New Atheist-esque prose."Firstly, recurring to ad hominem is another way Pro defeats himself. Secondly, I have the right to say whatever I want because we live in a free world where freedom of speech exists. Lastly, you were being egoist. I mean, no humble person says something like "I'm sure I'm of a higher intelligence".To conclude, Pro didn't gave any argument to defend his resolution so far. I encourage him to do so, at least in the last round.
Sun rotation causes the Earth's rotation | the Sun and Earth revolve each other.

Con has failed to counter my argument reasonably, and instead has resorted to childish withdrawal tactics. I've not asked him to agree with me, I've asked him to listen to my argument so that he can formulate a rational counter argument. He claims that I've asked for mutual agreement, then goes on to misinterpret what I explained was a “wise sense”, childishly, by joking to the academic akin- it's a joke they share, but I don't find it funny and nor would a neutral party. By his logic, wisdom is useless. Knowledge, experience and good judgement mean nothing to him where science is concerned- because if teachers tell him different, like a tame animal, he will heel, or even bark, at their command. Judges, I made a few mistakes in my round three argument: saying that the Sun is the centre of the galaxy when I meant solar system, a mistake I evaded in my round one argument; and saying Sun instead of Sol. Rather kindly, Con, did not pounce on these mistakes, which earns him respect. Yes, had Sol power not been there, the Earth's mass wouldn't hold. Con's counter for the argument that the Sun causes the 'day-effect rotation' of Earth, was insufficient, and my argument against the current day stands. When Con suggests that formulation of a spiral is not a power of four, he forgets the formulator, and instead focuses on the utility. He dismissed the fact that we can understand spirals through quadrant or quarter division, and focused on formulation. A spiral can be formed by a child who draws on paper, it can be formed by a computer, the golden ratio isn't key to it's formulation, it's the utility. Abstractions are resolved through temperament by Quad Helix theory. I imagine, although I have not checked, that the Golden Ratio is a power and fraction of four, as well as Pi. Apparently, Con, all the academic long-transcript of knowledge boycotts Quad Helix theory. That's because it's all Quad Helix-less, and therefore is wrong by reasonable, rational and sensible Quad Helix logic. If you look closely, Con, you'll notice the similarities between academia and Quad Helix theory. Con, try to not act childishly next round. It's three quarters your ego and a quarter discussing the day; you have no right to call me egotistical, just because yours has academic-support doesn't justify your New Atheist-esque prose.
Anthropogenic global warming is a threat

I apologize for any perceived rudeness but I am frankly disappointed that my opponent would regurgitate "10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change" as his argument since the source, while accurately stating the existence of global warming is inaccurate in its portrayal of CO2 as the main cause of global warming due to other variables such as water vapor, soot, solar radiation and other green house gases. The source also doesn't explain how global warming is a threat to humankind, nor does it imply global warming to be a threat either. My opponent also follows the EPA designation that CO2 is an air pollutant that directly harms humans. However the contention is false and misleading since CO2 is an end product of all plants and animals in order to breakdown sugars and nutrients. Also CO2 is not designated as a toxic or harmful gas by the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of the United Nations Economics Commission for Europe in accordance with the guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's testing of chemicals. (1)(2) A threat to humanity and the stability of geopolitics is the current hyped up rhetoric between Iran and Israel over Iran's nuclear program which could result in the creation of a nuclear warhead. With Israel threatening military attacks on Iranian nuclear enrichment plants. (3) Another economic threat to the world would be Iran's threat to attempt to blockade the straits of Hormuz if UN sanctions severely cripple its oil economy. (4) An even more obvious threat to international stability is the possibility of the chemical weapons stockpiled in Syria could fall into the hands of terrorist groups as the Syrian Civil War invites third party jihadists on the sides of either the Free Syrian Army or the Syrian Regime. (5) (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.washingtonpost.com... (4) http://www.upi.com... (5)http://news.yahoo.com...
Anthropogenic global warming is a threat

Thanks for accepting. I did want arguments against GW to be posted in R1, but that's OK.BOP is shared.Here is the first 5 of "10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change"[1] 1.Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year[2]. Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels. 2.When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels [3]. 3.This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide [4]. 4.Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels [5]. 5.So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".[6][7][1]http://www.skepticalscience.com...[2]http://cdiac.ornl.gov...[3]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...[4]Ibid[5]http://www.sciencemag.org...[6]http://www.nature.com...[7]https://docs.google.com...