BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High Schools should have a designated smoking area

Sorry to see Marvel couldn't make the last round. I'll conclude with a summary of the debate. The only advantages Pro claims from installing smoking sections are the containment of smoking and a controlled area for young smokers to fulfill their addictions. First, I demonstrated that installing a contained area for students to smoke is actually harmful to addicts, allowing them an extra 8 hour block to smoke at will, increasing their addiction. Furthermore, for a school to send a condoning message regarding smoking is dangerous. Both sides of this debate agree that smoking is a harmful habit; informing young smokers that we do not approve of their decision is a critical step in reduction and prevention. Next, the perception that we are somehow 'containing' youth smoking is a myth. High school smoking now is difficult and disbanded. With the inception of designated smoking areas, all high schoolers who smoke will be able to do so at school freely, allowing them to smoke more and possibly start smoking. Also, Pro has yet to prove that the cigarette butts left behind and the fire hazard created by current illicit smokers presents that much of a problem. The disadvantages of installing a smoking section are numerous and have yet to be refuted. Having a bunch of older kids smoking at school provides incentive for younger kids to smoke. Conveniencing addicts discredits the school's message of health and well-being, which we agree on. This, again, leads to more smokers and decreases the effectiveness of the very programs Pro suggests. So, the debate comes down to whether the harm of rogue illicit smokers leaving their butts behind outweighs the discrediting of schools and an exponential increase in youth smoking. Thank you. I enjoyed the debate.
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes

It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. That is the resolved. I will be supporting the con, or Negative side to this debate. To Use deadly force on an individual is to have the intention of of kill them, and to kill someone who has abused you, is only stooping to their level. By killing them, you are valuing your own life over theres. To have proper morals, and then value your life over another is contradicting itself in it's own sense. It is very dangerous as well, for it runs into the law. In many states, It is illegal to kill people even if they have abused you. Killing someone who abused you can make you go to jail.
The pro-life argument IS NOT supported by the Bible.

Well, it's not that abortion is mostly associated with pro-lfe so if we will talk about ONLY abortion. It's just an appeal to tradition baby. Oh and about the omnipotence paradoxes, been there done that. I don't wanna dwell more on that one since we will be getting of topic but I want to mean is that no omnipotence paradox is contrary to my adamantly emphasized act, the breathing unto dust to create life so God can really physically breath into people. Man sorry if I rushed it I have a lot of homework hahaha
The pro-life argument IS NOT supported by the Bible.

When I say "pro-life," I obviously mean the stance on the abortion debate, as that's when it's most commonly used. The pro-life stances you speak of, euthanasia and the death penalty, are supported by the Bible. So I was not referring to those stances. I also hold the view that God is omnipotent to an extent. It's obviously impossible for him to be completely omnipotent (If you haven't read much on omnipotence paradox, I suggest you do. It's rather interesting.). Many theologians disagree with this view as it's impossible. There are several things God cannot do. I'm not going to create a huge list because that would be rather pointless. But God cannot deceive, nor be corrupted. An important thing for this argument is that he is immovable. We have to look at what he can do in a logical sense. Though God can't physically breathe into people, he can give them breath. This is what God did in the case of Adam, as shown in Genesis 2:7, as well as Job, in Job 33:4. Not only does breath mark the beginning of life, but it also marks the end as shown in Luke 23:46, when Jesus dies: "Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last. (KJV)" So, in many parts of the Bible, breath is equated with life. Therefore, we cannot consider a fetus or an embryo a life. It is not supported by the scientific or biological definition either. The stages before birth are development as God knits us together in our mother's womb (Psalm 139:13-14). We are not complete until birth when we take our first breath. And if you were wondering my view on death penalty and euthanasia, I agree with you. I am pro-life in that aspect. This is an interesting site if you want to read about omnipotence paradox: http://www.courses.rochester.edu...
The pro-life argument IS NOT supported by the Bible.

I will just now go ahead with a straightforward attack and debate this in a logical sense.... Well we are talking if the pro-life argument if it is supported by the bible or not. Well, pro-life may also mean about death penalty and euthanasia, those are clear signs of life since they live, whilst killing them which have life is against the Bible's sixth commandment. Maybe you could quite say that one aspect of pro-life, abortion to be specific) is not supported by the bible but it does not warrant that all pro-life arguments are not supported by the Bible, the other arguments I refer to are euthanasia and death penalty. And also, how could you say that those are metaphorical. True that the Bible is composed of metaphors and such but it doesn't apply that since many are metaphorical so all are metaphorical. Well, you might say that it is clearly metaphorical since they are unbelievable but don't forget that God is omnipotent and He can do anything, like breathing to dust and make people out of them.
The pro-life argument IS NOT supported by the Bible.

Now, you're twisting my words. I said there is no consensus biological or scientific definition of when life starts. Notice the word consensus. That means there is not an agreed upon definition. So you created a false argument by twisting my words. Interesting definition, but I see it as proving my point. While the fetus is in the womb, it is developing. It is not yet a life form. It is entirely dependent on the mother and obviously can not use its organs properly since it can't breathe. As the embryo becomes a fetus and it keeps developing, the baby gains more of the characteristics. #1 mentions sweating. The fetus doesn't even develop sweat glands until 22 weeks. #2 is pretty ridiculous. That's basically suggesting that hair, which has cells, is a life. Another problem that you will have with the definition is #5 and #7. Adaptation will not occur until after the fetus is born. A fetus can obviously not sexually reproduce. However, it can produce new cells. As you can see, all of these are not possible until the baby is born. The stages before birth are development of life. The fetus is entirely dependent on its mother and does not have full control of its own body. No, your evidence does not suggest that a fetus has life. For one, it mentions sweating. Is it alive when it's basically just a ball of cells as an embryo? Does the fetus suddenly become alive when it's at 22 weeks because it develops sweat glands? Is the fetus not alive until it can adapt or sexually reproduce? This just goes on to prove my point that there is no consensus biological or scientific definition of when life starts. Your last paragraph is incredibly ridiculous as you take it far too literally. God does not have a humanlike body to breathe "life" into someone. God just caused him to start breathing. "The breath of the Almighty" is meant as a metaphor and should not be taken literally. It is equating life with breath. The man is not "a living soul" until he is given the "breath of life." This shows that one is not a living soul until he takes his first breath. And one cannot its first breath until he's born. NOTE: This is not part of my argument, but I definitely do not recommend using Wikipedia as a source in a scientific argument. Also, you may want to address the topic at hand more in your response, which is whether the "pro-life" position is supported by the Bible.
The pro-life argument IS NOT supported by the Bible.

Really, there is no biological or scientific definition of when life starts? Well according to my source here are the indications of life backed up with science of course. Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena: 1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature. 2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. 3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. 4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. 5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. 6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey. 7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... As the evidence suggests, a fetus has life. Killing a life is murder. So he/she should not be killed and the 6th commandment supports my stance. I think you had some misconception about the bible quotes and allow me to explain them all. The breath they were talking about is God's breath, not the breath of the human being created. Simply put, you cannot equate God's breath with life.
The pro-life argument IS NOT supported by the Bible.

First off, I'll start off with the term "pro-life." Although that's what they want it to mean, it's not truly what it means. There is no consensus scientific or biological definition of when life starts. However, the Fourteenth Amendment seems to offer the view that one is not alive until born. Therefore, one isn't granted the same rights as a United States citizen. I will anticipate your counterpoint to that. You will likely look at the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. But that is a very sparingly used law and clearly does not apply to abortion. The bill contains an exception to abortion. Fetuses are given very limited rights. Also, as for the Christian viewpoint (this is the important part), the Bible equates life with breath. Here are several verses: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. -- Genesis 2:7 (KJV)" "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. -- Job 33:4 (KJV)" "So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. -- Ezekiel 37:10 (KJV)" I am a Christian and my belief is that the Bible does not have a stance on either side of the issue. I'm not sure what God's view on abortion would be, but the Bible does not support either side. Abortion obviously was not an issue at the time when the Bible was written. So it's hard to tell what his view on the issue is. The reason I say this is because I don't like how people use the Bible to justify their pro-life stance, when that is really not the issue. I'm expecting someone to quote Jeremiah 1:5 in a response. But that does not really support your view, so I'd be interested in seeing how you can connect that to your argument. So you can go ahead and mention the "sanctity of life." You can go ahead and mention the 6th commandment (Thou shalt not murder). But that doesn't contradict my argument because one is not considered alive until one takes a breath.
Earth is flat.

Let me outline for you exactly what has been said.Response 1:I began the debate by claiming that belief in a flat Earth is rational, as it is a properly basic belief. In other words, since people directly encounter a degree of flatness every day, the experience alone justifies belief. I began this way for two reasons. First, it establishes that belief in a flat Earth is rational, however, it also demonstrates that a belief can be held even when it is scrutinized for potentially lacking evidence. Counter 1:Now, your first response was to claim that people do not observe a flat earth; since, if you were to zoom out, the Earth look like a sphere. However (whether true or not), this fails to discredit my claim since people do not observe the Earth in a zoomed out state; rather, when they do observe the Earth, it is up close and apparently flat. As a result, you fail to disprove the properly basic belief, and it remains rational.Response 2:My second response did not introduce any new arguments, it simply pointed out the flawed thinking behind your first response.Counter 2:Your second response is a misrepresentation of my claim quite frankly. You imply that I have gotten off topic, and then go further to say that I have not explained why the Earth is a pancake. Please let me remind you, that the only thing I have claimed so far is that belief in a flat Earth is rational, and is justified since it is a properly basic belief. That is what I claimed in my opening statement, and that is all I have argued for at this point. And quite frankly, both your contentions have done a poor job of disproving this claim.The bottom line is that you have done a sloppy job of debunking my argument for a properly basic belief to justify rational belief; and, have failed to present an argument of your own why such a belief might be irrational. The only thing you have done is use random hypotheticals which do not apply to the discussion. At least to me, this looks like a weak approach, and it demonstrates how vacuous your arguments really are.
Earth is flat.

I think that the argument that you are making is that from our perspective, the Earth appears flat; however, if you zoom in on a sphere close enough, it looks flat. As an example, graph x^2+y^2=1 and have the x-axis go from 0.69 to 0.695 and the y-axis go from 0.72 to 0.725. It appears like a line, however, if you zoom out, it is clear that it is a circle.
Earth is flat.

It is common reaction to label people who believe in a flat Earth as crazy or irrational; howevee, here I will argue that they are justified because it is a properly basic belief. In other words, a person's direct experience with something is sufficient to justify belief in that thing. In addition, it is obvious that every person can observe and experience a degree of flatness with the world every single day; and, as a result, every person can have a properly basic belief about the flatness of Earth. It is then simply arrogant to present scientific arguments to counter a belief which is justified in this way. Thankyou
Earth is flat.

My claim is that saying that if you don't experience it, believing it is rational, opens the door to any conspiracy theory you want. https://www.truthcontrol.com... The thing is, most conspiracy theories can be justified using that line of reasoning. For example, suppose I said the Earth is hollow, not made of molten rock because I never dug to the center of the Earth. I could also say the moon landing was faked because I never personally went to the Moon and saw Neil Armstrong.
Earth is flat.

Suppose that you encounter a society of people who have never encountered the modern world. Lets say that they are extremely undeveloped, and as a result, they do not believe in atoms. Now lets say that a journalist visits said tribe, and tells them that atoms make up everything. Maybe he gives them evidence, and shows them a couple pictures. Obviously, they would not immediatley accept everything he says, but that does not mean that their belief in the non-existence of atoms is not justified or irrational. After all, they have no direct experience with this phenonmenon, so why would they believe what this man says, even with all the evidence he brings. You clearly would not label them as irrational people; after all, they only are discrediting the journalists statements because they have not experienced the things he is talking about. He might show them a picture of an atom, but they were not the ones that took it, so why should they believe it. In the same way, why should you jam a picture of the Earth down the throat of someone who thinks it is flat? They clearly did not take it. Why should they believe it? From their point of view, the looks extremely flat, and just because they have no experience with a round Earth is no reason to call them irrational. My claim is not that since the Earth looks flat it is flat. It is that since you can experience a flat Earth, it is reasonable to think it is flat. Now, you made the assertion that this line of thinking can be used to justify absurdities, such as conspiracy theories. I disagree. A belief is properly basic if the person has direct experience with something; this, is what justifies the belief. Let me illustrate this. A popular conspiracy theory is that tupac is really alive. Now, in order for this belief to be properly basic, is for a person to experience tupac after he alledgedly died. Since they experience his presence, they are justified in believing that he is actually alive. It is not a matter of perspective or opinion, it is a matter of experience. I experience external reality, so I can reasonably believe it exists. I experience the warmth of the sun, so I can reasonably believe it exists. I experience the flatness of Earth, so I can reasonably believe it exists. If you are going to claim that this line of reasoning can justify absurd thinking, then you are going to have to give me some sound examples. But until you do, my belief is still rational and reasonable.
Earth is flat.

https://www.theguardian.com... For instance, what"s the tallest supposed mountain on Earth? Everest. Except it isn"t. The name is a giveaway; it"s clearly a morphing of "never rest", because if you wanted to go to the biggest mountain you"d literally never rest, because it isn"t actually there. What about all those people who have climbed it, you say? Well, consider all the people who have died supposedly doing so. How do you die climbing something that isn"t there? You can"t. They were obviously killed to protect the conspiracy, whereas those who "survived" were willing to play ball. And if that isn"t clear enough, pretty much everyone who attempts to climb Everest takes oxygen with them. Why would you do that when there"s oxygen all around us, in the air? Wherever they"re going, it isn"t on Earth. You know where you do need oxygen, though? THE MOON! That"s where they"re going. So-called mountaineers are being sent to the moon in order to fake climbing Everest. This is why Nasa had to fake the moon landing with astronauts, because it was already full of mountaineers and they couldn"t risk exposing that conspiracy. See how it all adds up? I will assume that we can both agree that this quote is ridiculous. Not only does it say that Mount Everest is fake, it says that NASA faked the moon landings as well, by saying that there is no need for oxygen on Mount Everest because there is oxygen all around us. I think you are saying that believing that the Earth is flat is a rational belief because it appears flat from our perspective. However, then, many conspiracy theories are rational. For instance, many people might go through life without looking at an atom because they are really really small. However, if somebody said that atoms do not exist... they would never be able to enter a scientific community. Same for viruses, even though viruses are considerably bigger. The point is that just because we can never see something does not mean it is rational to not believe in it. We can never see air, but if I said that air is a lie, that would be an irrational belief because even though we can't see air, there is evidence that it is there. Using the same logic, yes, many people might not ever in their lifetime zoom out enough to see with their own eyes that Earth is round. However, there is scientific evidence to support it, just as there is scientific evidence for viruses and atoms.
It is logical to say that God exists

Let me begin by stating my religious beliefs. I do not follow any specific religion but am I devout believer in God. God is an abstract force and cannot be proved by any means of text. The Bible, Koran, etc. are all man written texts with stories that are either myths or exaggerated events that could be scientifically explained. This, however, does not disprove God's existence. God does exist and it is completely logical to say this. You state that I must "have proof to support your god..." This is my exact point. God cannot be defined as a single thing, so it is completely logical to say God is anything. God is something that is seen by an individual, not something that can be clearly defined. For the sake of the debate, let's assume that there is no clear definition of God. This, therefore, opens the definition and proof of "God" to all religions, including Atheism. Atheism itself is just the disbelief in the divine, or rather the belief in the physical. Atheists believe in science, nature, etc. all of these which could be considered "God." Remember, God has no clear definition so a belief in anything could be considered a belief in God. Let me give another example. In Catholicism, there is the belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; all three of the entities combined are the holy trinity which is a belief system. Again, God is not clearly defined here and any of these entities could be considered "God." Now, based on what I've said, believing in anything is believing in God. So a belief in something is a belief in God, no matter how absurd or how abstract. According to the Oxford dictionary, a belief is "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists" God is simply a way of categorizing a belief in something of profound meaning. People have taken "God" to mean something that is divine or supernatural. This is simply not the case. God is anything that has meaning, this could be as logical or as illogical as you want it to be. A scientist believes in an atom. Now, granted this has been proved, but still, it has a meaning and is of great importance to many individuals. This is what God is about. A belief in God can be considered logical when looking at it from this sense. To conclude what I'm saying, let me simplify my points. A person believing or not believing in God does not make a belief in God logical or illogical. A belief in God is simply a belief in something that is of meaning to a person, whether divine, supernatural, scientific, etc. Finally, once we put God into the perspective of a belief, any belief that is based upon an idea can be considered logical. Therefore, it's logical to say that God exists.