BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bowe Bergdahl exchange was a good decision.

Contention 1: Bowe Bergdahl is a Deserter. My opponent said that I have not provided valid evidence, but this is incorrect as I have given you quotes from his commanding officer, the Taliban themselves, and his fellow soldiers. It's obvious that this is important and my opponent has dropped this contention so please extend this across the board. Why is this important you may ask? It is simply because our trade, on balance, did not come anywhere close to our favors as we released these dangerous terrorists back to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. All whom of which are HIGH risk detainees at Gitmo for a traitor. Thus showing that it wasn't a good decision and thus disproving the resolution of which we are debating. Contention 2: The 'bad' guysKeeping Prisoners of War during War time is legal! So the US has yet to violate any law unlike the men who we had to give up. The only rules are that we have to return them when the war is over and as my opponent has dropped. We are still at war. Thus meaning we are still Justified at keeping prisoners in Gitmo until the War on Terror has ended. Which it has not as I proved last round and my opponent has dropped. All 5 men are associated with both the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda is guilty of several war crimes and crimes against humanity. My opponent is also incorrect again. The White House has labeled the Afghanistan Taliban as a terrorist organization. Early June, White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden stated that the Afghanistan Taliban was added to the Specially Designated Global Terrorist by Executive Order in 2002. Thus showing that my opponent is again incorrect and we have indeed released terrorists. (. http://abcnews.go.com...) Contention 3: Still at War According to the United Nations, the Taliban is responsible for 76% of causalities in Afghanistan. (Kegley, Charles W. ; Shannon L Blanton. World Politics: Trend and Transformation. Cengage. p. 230. ) The Taliban are also targeting health workers trying to eradicate Polio in Afghanistan in 2012, causing Afghanistan government officials to suspend vaccinations just because of the Taliban forces in the area. (. http://www.theguardian.com...) The US started the War on Terror on September 20th, 2001. It still goes on today and has yet to end. The War in Afghanistan can be defined as the US and NATO forces engaged in the Afghan Civil War fighting against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. (. http://www.cleveland.com...) NATO has acknowledged the war and is fighting with us. The war is still going on. In conclusion we can see that my opponent has dropped my first contention and much of the rest. We can see that the Taliban is a terrorist organization and we are still at war in Afghanistan and against the Taliban. We gave up a 5 dangerous HIGH risk terrorists to acquire a traitor who got up and deserted US forces in Afghanistan. So you can see that it was not a good decision. With that I thank you.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Logically Sound

LOGICAL VALIDITY"Now, I recall my opponent saying that he was okay with me using a slightly different version of the KCA"I never said I was okay with Pro removing an essential conclusion from the argument."...one can assume that he exists by inferrence from the argument's conclusion of God being the first cause."Non-sequitur. God could have ended his existence after creating the universe, since the only significance the KCA gives him is that of a first cause.Pro has not refuted my argument regarding the logical validity of the KCA.LOGICAL SOUNDNESSR1) Ex Nihilo Nihil FitPro seems to have misunderstood my rebuttal, here. I am not arguing that nothing does not exist... I am arguing that it doesn't exist WITHIN our universe, because of the presence of a quantum energy field. And because we have never witnessed an actual vacuum (pure nothing), we cannot claim that it is impossible for something to come from it without cause.R2) Actual InfinitePro argues that we are debating the logical soundness of the KCA, not what can be inferred from its premises.However, my rebuttal does, indeed, refute the soundness of the KCA.Allow me to demonstrate:I. An argument cannot be sound if one of its premises refutes its conclusionsII. Pro has made the second premise of the KCA contingent on the sub-premise that an actual infinite cannot existIII. That sub-premise refutes the KCA's conclusionsIV. The second premise of the KCA refutes the KCA's conclusionsV. The KCA is not logically sound.Reference for II: Pro's Defense of P2 in Round 2Reference for III : My R2 in Round 3R3) False DichotomyAgain, I must assert that I only mentioned Simultaneous Causation and the Instability of Nothingness as theoretical first causes of the Universe that could serve as alternatives to God. I clarified this last round: "I'm not saying that either of these processes must be the first cause of the universe; they are just examples. In my actual argument, I simply stated that "the first cause of the universe can also be some sort of unconscious process which is capable of interacting with reality". This process could be something which we have not discovered/thought of yet; it would be an ad ignorantum logical fallacy to discredit its existence simply because scientific research has not progressed far enough to know of it."Pro did not even mention this, yet this was the main part of my rebuttal...CONCLUSIONIt has been shown that not only is the KCA logically invalid, but it is also logically unsound, with all three of its premises being baseless and one of them even refuting the KCA's conclusions.Vote Con!Thanks for a fun debate, Pro!Please remember that you are not allowed to write anything relevant to the debate next round!
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Logically Sound

Thanks to Con for his argument! Now, I recall my opponent saying that he was okay with me using a slightly different version of the KCA; one that argues for God being the cause, but not for his existence. Not at least in the structure of the argument itself, but depending on what kind of god you're arguing for (the traditional all powerful monotheistic god or a deistic god.), one can assume that he exists by inferrence from the argument's conclusion of God being the first cause. "Out of nothing, nothing comes." So anyway, my opponent's basically stating that there may be no such thing as absolutely "nothing"; or that it's just a quantum vacuum or in other words, a quantum energy field. Now, what my opponent says about this is true, but at the same time, he's also inferring that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness. Is this to say the quantum field is timeless and eternal and has always existed? I know of no such compelling evidence to suggest this even in the link he's provides. There's still the problem of a cosmic beginning and why and how the quantum field existed. What caused all that to happen? Even in simultaneous causation, it's still implied there was a cause. Actual infinite Logically following from the beginning of this argument, this hasn't refuted God's existence, since even my opponent himself states that according to the argument, God would have no greater significance than a cause. The argument itself only argues for the cause; we aren't debating on what can be inferred by the argument, we're debating over whether or not the argument itself is logically sound. False dichotomy I was hoping my opponent would elaborate more than he did, nevertheless, I will rebut them. Simultaneous causation This would lead us to ask "Why?". My opponent hasn't provided a reason to believe it's plausible; he has only stated what it means. Instability of nothingness My opponent himself said that we have no evidence of absolute nothingness. How can we accept this as possible as well? He also has not given a reason to believe why it should be. Conclusion I have demonstrated the KCA's logical validity and soundness, and defended it. This is why I pull this argument out so much.=P This has been a great discussion. Thanks for your time, man! :) Hopefully we can do this again later.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Logically Sound

Thanks to Pro for his arguments.LOGICAL VALIDITYPro attempts to deny that the KCA includes the conclusion "God exists". But to do so is absurd because the entire purpose of the KCA's conceptualization was to prove the existence of God, and it is also unfair because I already outlined the version of the KCA being argued in this debate in Round 1; by accepting this debate, Pro was agreeing to use that version, which included the "God exists" conclusion. Pro must explain why God having created universe logically leads to the conclusion that he still exists.LOGICAL SOUNDNESSR1) Ex Nihilo Nihil FitPro does not rebut my objections, here. He simply cites the metaphysical principle "ex nihilo nihil fit" and states that since the actual infinite cannot exist, that principle is true...He's going to need to show why this is so. Even if it is true that an actual infinite cannot exist, he does not make any effort to show why that would logically prove that something cannot come from nothing.The main problem with the principle "ex nihilo nihil fit" is that there is no evidence for it, as we have never witnessed pure nothingness, due to the existence of a positive vacuum energy density. In order to proclaim that something cannot come from nothing, we must first witness actual nothing to observe that something cannot come from it.R2) Actual InfinitePro goes goes into an extensive explanation of why it is impossible for an actual infinite to exist.Normally, I would actually go in and try to rebut the explanation he gave, but I'd rather approach it from a different way:An actual infinite being impossible would refute the existence of God.God would have to be infinite and eternal in order to be the universe's first cause and not have any first cause himself, yet Pro himself is saying that being infinite and eternal is logically impossible. R3) False DichotomyPro asked me to elaborate on the two example alternatives I gave for the universe to have a first cause, so here goes:1. Simultaneous Causation- the idea that process A can cause process B at the same time that process B causes process A, which could theoretically be possible in the spaceless and timeless plane of existence from before the Big Bang2. Instability of Nothingness- the idea that the state of nothingness is inherently unstable and *requires* the existence of "something" in order to fill itAnd also, I'm not saying that either of these processes must be the first cause of the universe; they are just examples. In my actual argument, I simply stated that "the first cause of the universe can also be some sort of unconscious process which is capable of interacting with reality". This process could be something which we have not discovered/thought of yet; it would be an ad ignorantum logical fallacy to discredit its existence simply because scientific research has not progressed far enough to know of it. CONCLUSION[insert conclusion from last round :P ]Friendly reminder to Pro: this is your last round to argue, so make it good!
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Logically Sound

Thanks to Con for his rebuttals!Rebuttal to Logical ValidityI didn't forget anything in the argument. It appears my opponent has misunderstood the structure of the KCA. If you look at the actual structure, the conclusion only states that the cause was a mind, or God. The conclusion doesn't explicitly state God exists. My version of the KCA is based directly on the original one, just with another syllogism added to defend it. If you click on these links, you'll see what I'm talking about.(1)(2) So the logical validity of the structure of the argument itself stands.Rebuttals to Logical SoundnessNow, I'll defend my premises and attempt to refute my opponent's rebuttals.Defense of P1When I say everything that begins to exist has a cause, I mean everything on a metaphysical as well as a physical level. My premise here is just a basic principle of metaphysics, which is "ex nihilo nihil fit", or in English, "Out of nothing, nothing comes." (3) is mainly supported by the argument that an actual infinite cannot exist. I will get to that in a little bit.Defense of P2Now here, I'll demonstrate how the universe cannot be infinite and eternal, as an actual infinite is logically impossible. Let's imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms, and all the rooms are full. When a new guy wants to check in, the owner says, "Sorry, we're full." Now, inagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms that are once again full. There isn't a single vacant room in it. Then a guest shows up and wants to check in. The owner goes, "Of course! Of course!" and shifts the guy in room 1 to room 2, and the guy in room 2 to room 3, and the guy in room 3 to room 4, and so on out to infinity. He does this until room 1 is finally vacant. But how can this be? If the hotel has an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests, and the rooms are all full, how can there be a vacancy? This idea of an infinite gives rise to a logical paradox. Thus, an actual infinite is impossible. Once again, we have two options: the universe had a beginning or it didn't and was eternal and infinite. I have demonstrated how an infinite is impossible. So, by Modus Tollens, there must have been a beginning to the universe. There is always still the problem of facing a cosmoc beginning. Therefore, the second premise has been defended.Defense of Premise 3My opponent claims that there are other possibilities rather than an abstract and a personal cause. However, these aren't explained by my opponent; he's simply stated them and hasn't given any reason to believe that they should be true or that we should accept them as possibilities, while I have given reason to believe my options. I invite him to please do so.ConclusionPerhaps if I were to forfeit, my opponent would have demonstrated the argument's logical invalidity and unsoundness. However, I have no intention of doing any such thing, as I have shown that the KCA is valid and sound. I look forward to Con's arguments.Sources(1)http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(2)http://plato.stanford.edu... (3)http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Logically Sound

Hello to all!.Kalam Cosmological ArgumentP1) That which begins to exist must have a first causeP2) The Universe began to existC1) The Universe has a first causeP3) If the Universe has a first cause, that first cause must be GodC2) God exists.DefinitionsLogically Valid- describing an argument in which the conclusions logically follow the premisesLogically Sound- describing a logically valid argument in which all the premises are factually accurateFirst Cause- cause of existenceGod- the conscious creator of the universeKCA- abbreviation for the "Kalam Cosmological Argument".Rules1) Pro will provide a defense of each of the KCA's premises in Round 1. Round 1 is NOT for acceptance!2) Pro will abstain from posting anything relevant to the debate in Round 4 so that both sides will have an equal number of rounds to debate.3) Pro must object to any of the above, if he/she wishes to do so, in the comments section BEFORE accepting the debate..Good luck to my future opponent!
It is better for a leader to be more feared than loved.

Full resolution:"In a situation where both virutes are incompatible: it is better for a leader to be more feared than loved."Rules-BoP is shared, as Pro must prove it is better to be feared as a leader, Con must equally prove that it is better to be loved as a leader.-If you're intrested in the debate, be sure to comment below-Be civil and follow the format.Format:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening CasesRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Closing Arguments/ Counter-rebuttalsTerms:Leader: One wholeads or commands a group, organization, or country.Loved: Held by strong compassion or admirationFeared: Held by fear, anxiety or dread.Better: Comparitivly good or well
It is better for a leader to be more feared than loved.

"The same can be said for previous examples of this kind, like the British Empire."The British Empire maintained their power through fear. America had its revolution because they lost that fear, which proves how fear doesn't work forever. [1] You also didn't address Mussolini."If country A seeks to oppose country X then country will have to be allied with, regardless of personal distaste or lack thereof."That's my point. Country A could be afraid of country X and he would ally with other countries to fight country X. Wars are often started out of fear."I only stated that bribery, despite ethical muddiness of the method, was just one primary means that the Kim Dynasty seeked to maintain loyalty from their people."Exactly. There are better ways for a leader to be loved, such as helping the country's economy, protecting its citizens, etc.ConclusionFear leads to hate, which leads to rebellions and alliances of enemies, which leads to a leader's fall. Love maintains power, pleases the people, and removes the necessity for enemies to be allied against a country.[1] http://www.britishempire.co.uk...
It is better for a leader to be more feared than loved.

"If said leader must act in practicality yet pragmatic need contradict that wants of the masses , then said leader would simply be forced to appease the masses, because failure in doing so would be an affront to the very basis of his power."That is true."A method from which leader Kim Jong Il used to receive favour of government officials was via 'gift politics', in other words, lavish bribery to bureaucrats and officials and 'explemary citizens' to maintain a sense of admiration for the 'Supreme Leader'."Leaders don't have to do that to be loved. Most leaders who are loved maintain their popularity by accomplishing great things that please their subjects. That's how Hitler maintained his power, as did many other monarchs and dictators.I believe that this refutes your argument, which rests on the assumption that bribery is the only way for a leader to be loved.I await your rebuttal.
It is better for a leader to be more feared than loved.

Contention #1: Leaders who are loved are less likely to be overthrown or assassinated.No one wants to overthrow a leader they love. If a leader is feared, he is most likely hated as well, and rebellions will always happen eventually. Historical examples include:Pre-revolutionary France King Louis XVI was hated by nearly all of his subjects who suffered from his oppression (use of fear). He was overthrown and executed.British Empire The British government used fear and oppressed people in their colonies. This led to successful rebellions in the United States and India.World War II Hitler came into power by making the German people love him. On the other hand, Mussolini was overthrown because he tried to use fear to secure his position.Contention #2: Leaders who are loved make more allies.Most countries won't support someone who they're afraid of. This is why people like Napoleon and Hitler always fail. In both instances, there were many more countries fighting against them than they had on their side.Contention #3: In a democracy, leaders who are feared aren't re-elected.A leader without power doesn't create much fear. People don't want someone they fear to be in power, so they won't vote for them.
It is better for a leader to be more feared than loved.

Unfortunately, due to outside factors (and what appears to be a glitch on my computer), I will be unable to post my arguments this round. I would like to pass this round and make up for my absence at round three. Apologies for the inconvenience, I'd like to request Con to continue with his arguments this round, I'll be sure to catch up next round/ Apologies for the inconvenience.
The Judeo/Christian god must be the one true god

The last debate I posted ended in forfeiture for my opponent so this time let's actually try and have a debate. By accepting the debate you must agree to follow the format or else forfeit:R1: Acceptance R2: ArgumentsR3-R5: RebuttalsThe argument is just as it says. According to evidences - the God of the bible must be the one true god. I'm against that notion (there is, probably, no god).Thanks!
Are you against or for domestic violence

think that domestic violence is wrong. People need to control their tempers before they even think of hitting another person. Go hit a wall or throw something. Never hit another person. It can really cause a person to not feel good about themselves, to have love self esteem. Any person in a relationship where there is domestic violence should seek help for the sake of the relationship , or just get out of the relationship altogether. If there are children, in the family, where there is domestic violence, it might affect them later on in their own lives, as they become adults.
KU is better at college sports than MU

Thank you, con for your arguments. I will now refute them. "You are correct in saying that MU is better at football currently, and is higher in the Capital One Cup standings at this time." My opponent agrees. Also, Missouri has a better all-time football record than Kansas with Missouri having a 652-531-53 all time record [4] and kansas having a 578-589-58 record. Missouri also has 6 more conference titles than Kansas. "MU has 2 all-time championships in all sports, with the most recent being in 1965." My opponent is wrong. Missouri has one more championship than Kansas in baseball, which means Missouri is better at baseball and football than Kansas, while Kansas is only better at basketball. "We also claim the inventor of one of the most popular sports in the U.S. This would be with James Naismith and Basketball, of course. If you look at MU, however, they cannot lay claim to the invention of a sport." Again, you have already proven you are better at basketball. My opponent has no shown that they are better at any other sport. "However, MU claims Football superiority. They have been dominant as of late, but if you look at history, they are fairly equal. The all time record is with MU leading, 56-54. Not so dominant." Since Missouri does lead the head to head record, they are able to state that they are superior at football. Missouri also has a better all time football win percentage than Kansas. I have proven that Missouri is better at baseball and football, my opponent has only proved that Kansas is better at basketball. Missouri is better than Kansas at 2 sports, Kansas is better than Missouri at only 1. Thank you pro for this debate and good luck in future ones. Vote con. [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...