BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Problem of Evil

1) As stated Previously evil is not something that can be created, it is an absence. The absence of God is evil. When people turn away from god, evil enters the world. That has been my case throughout the debate. The Pro has ignored this point pursuing the idea evil was created. 3) There is no true dichotomy, and the Pro has demonstrated that he does not know how dichotomies work. A dichotomy implies there are two options, when in fact there are more than two options. There is no need for middle ground, there are simply alternatives. 3) The Pro has failed to acknowledge his role in the debate, that is to provide justification for his argument. He has not done this, and chosen to attack my argument instead. No Justification means the con wins on presumption. End) Pro has failed to play his role in the debate by not providing any justification for his arguments, and has not fully participated.
The Problem of Evil

1)I have defined the word perfect: "Something is perfect if it can't be improved." The term "perfection in balance" in no way defines what perfection is. 2) Con: "Therefore while God did not create evil, it his creation that did" I have criticised this point already. This implies that God created something that is capable of evil (contradiction: omnibenevolence). It also implies something was created, but not by God. (contradiction: God created everything) Con: "It gave man the ability to 'chose its own adventure,' if you will, and that adventure can go down any path it chooses." Con implies that a possible path to choose is one going away from God, therefore going towards evil, a path of evil. Where did that path come from? Either God created a path of evil, or there is a path of evil in this world which was not created by God. Same to contradictions as above. 3)"evil enters the world", "evil came about". Con does a good job in remaining vague. From point 2) I will assume that Con is talking about Evil coming into existence, evil being created. 4) false dichotomy of perfection or non perfection: As Con has not registered my definition of perfection, I can not expect him to have understood that there is a TRUE DICHOTOMY at hand. Something is either perfect, or it is not. There is no middle ground. Con: "If something is perfect it would not have free will, which violates the entire premise of the argument." So according to Con, God either created perfect human beings or he created human beings with free will. Con is arguing for the Pro position. Burden of proof: According to Con, Pro has the burden of proof. This is indeed true, Pro has the duty to prove that there is a problem of evil, or in other words that there is a contradiction between the existence of both God and evil. I have fulfilled that proof in my opening argument. This debate has consisted of us discussing weather that proof is valid or not. To claim I have not attempted to fulfill the burden is dishonest, to claim the proof brought forward is invalid is the duty of Con by definition. End) This debate has failed because Con has no understanding of how to engage in arguments presented that do not confirm his initial belief. Con also lacks knowledge of logic, rendering this debate intellectually worthless. No progress has been achieved.
The Problem of Evil

By forfeiting this round the Pro has conceded to my arguments. The Problem of evil is reconcilable by the Augustinian Theodicy which is 1) God is good in that he is just and fair 2) God created a world that reflects his perfection. 3) This perfection is embodied in balance of nature. 4) God created man with free will (which will be defined as the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate). 5) Man could choose God's perfection or evil. 6) Man choose/was tempted to sin, bringing disharmony into the world 7) Evil enters the world through the choice of man, not God. 8) Natural evil is sin or the consequence of sin. 9) God is just by not intervening because evil is the result of human action. 10) God is fair and loving by offering us forgiveness and salvation.
The Problem of Evil

As the Pro has not stated what the definition of "perfect" is, and thus it should be defaulted to my definition of balance and all arguments made to contradict this point should be disregarded as they are undefined. Second, God cannot create something that is inherently evil, but God can create something that has the freedom to choose what it does, even if it chooses something god would not do. It gave man the ability to "chose its own adventure," if you will, and that adventure can go down any path it chooses. God is not forcing man to go down one certain path. Therefore while God did not create evil, it his creation that did. I do know that makes us sound like some kind of Frankenstein's monster, but that is itself a very apt analogy, which I will not get into. Third, evil enters the world is a way of saying that this is how evil came about. Evil ENTERED THE WORLD by the fall of man, ie evil came to be from the fall of man. Fourth, the pro is proposing a false dichotomy without even defining the dichotomy, and attempting to suppress the correlative. If something is perfect it would not have free will, which violates the entire premise of the argument. It is also on the Pro, not the con, to fulfill the burden of proof, which has not been done and instead the Pro has prompted the con to provide justification. On a procedural note, should we really continue into a fifth round? I don't really see the point of a fifth round in this debate since we jumped right into the arguments.
The Problem of Evil

First I will extend my argument by elaborating the Augustinian Theodicy 1) God is good in that he is just and fair 2) God created a world that reflects his perfection. 3) This perfection is embodied in balance of nature. 4) God created man with free will (which will be defined as the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate). 5) Man could choose God's perfection or evil. 6) Man choose/was tempted to sin, bringing disharmony into the world 7) Evil enters the world through the choice of man, not God. 8) Natural evil is sin or the consequence of sin. 9) God is just by not intervening because evil is the result of human action. 10) God is fair and loving by offering us forgiveness and salvation. The objections raised by the Pro ignore several key elements of the Augustinian Theodicy. First, he claims that the world was created in absolute perfection. This is itself a contradiction because nothing, at all can be absolutely perfect. Roses were still created with thorns and wolves were created alongside sheep. The world is perfect in its balance, much like a pendulum. For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction. This balance is the way the world is perfect. His Argument in point A also ignores the link, which is the fall of man, and is therefore unsupported. Second, his claim that Adam and Eve were created as perfect beings completely ignore the notion of free will. Adam and Eve were created with the potential to be perfect much like God (this is not to say that this perfection is beyond consequence), but were tempted into sin creating disharmony. In conclusion, it all comes down to balancing act of the world. God created a world that was perfect in its balance, and beings with the potential to be perfect, but had free will. Because man has free will, man choose not to follow god, and man created sin and evil.
The Problem of Evil

I have the following Objections to the Augustinian theodicy: A) How can a perfect world go wrong? 1) God is good and cannot create evil. 2) God creates a perfect world free of evil. 3) Evil enters the world. Contradiction: If evil can enter the world God created, then the world was not perfect to begin with. B) How can perfect beings commit evil actions? 1) God created a perfect world. 2) Adam and Eve are a part of that world and were created by God. 3) If Adam and Eve are part of Gods perfect creation, they themselves are perfect. 4) As perfect beings, Adam and Eve cannot commit evil acts nor be corrupted by evil. 5) "Sin and death entered the world through Adam and Eve, and their disobedience." Contradiction: Augustine claims Adam and Eve created evil through their disobedience. Yet as perfect beings, Adam and Eve cannot create evil. Concerning the claim that evil originates form Adam and Eve I would like to extend my initial argument 1) God created everything. 2) Therefore everything originates form God. 3) Evil exists in our world. 4) God is ultimately responsible for everything including evil. Contradiction: An omnibenevolent Being cannot be responsible for evil. To sum up I arrive at the following conclusions: The two objections to the Augustinian theodicy show how the attempt to justify Gods coexistence with evil fails due to logical contradiction. My extended argument once more shows that God (as I have defined him in my argument of round 1) cannot coexist with evil.
The Problem of Evil

I appreciate this challenge from A1tre, and I look forward to a riveting debate. By using the Augustinian theodicy I will show that there is no contradiction in the existence of God and the existence of evil. The Augustinian Philosophy was theorized by St. Augustine and states that god created a perfect world, and gave humans free will. It through the fall of man and the original sin of Adam and Eve, evil entered the world, when people chose to turn away from god. It can be summarized as such. 1) God is perfect. The world he created reflects that perfection. 2) Humans were created with free will. 3) Sin and death entered the world through Adam and Eve, and their disobedience. 4) Adam and Eve"s disobedience brought about "disharmony" in both humanity and Creation. 5) The whole of humanity experiences this disharmony because we were all "seminally" present in the loins of Adam. 6) Natural evil is sin or the consequence of sin. 7) God is justified in not intervening because the suffering is a consequence of human action. 8) God is loving by offering us forgiveness and salvation. As con, I shall show that God can and does coexist with evil, through the Augustinian theodicy.
The Problem of Evil

Welcome to my first created debate. I saw you were eager to debate this topic with someone who was not willing, and I thought I might offer myself as an alternative opponent. The Problem of Evil was first stated by Epicurus and attempts to prove that there is a logical contradiction between the existence of God and that of evil. The argument goes as follows: 1. God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. 2. An omnibenevolent being wants to prevents all evil from existing. 3. An omniscient being knows how to prevent all evil from existing. 4. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent all evil from existing. 5. A being who wants to prevent evil, knows how to prevent evil and has the power to prevent evil will succeed in preventing evil. 6. Therefore if a being like God exists, there can be no evil. 7. There is evil, which therefore constitutes a logical contradiction. As Pro I will argue that this contradiction truly holds, and that as a consequence one must either abandon belief in God or belief in evil. As Con you must show that evil can coexist with God.
technology in schools

1. gaming At my school we have chromebooks. Most kids use them just to listen to music or play games. It"s just giving kids a device to game on. 2. It"s a distraction to the class. I get very distracted when kids get on their computers and my friends share the same problem. 3. Most teacher still give out note to write on not type. I find that I remember stuff more when I write it. http://classroom.synonym.com......
All politics propaganda should be banned

Concluding ArgumentPro uses the argument that "we should ban propaganda because it leads to patriotism" without including any evidence to suggest this--which thus leaves his case entirely unsupported and *not* verified. Pro seems to think that "all" propaganda leads to patriotism, however, one could easily argue that there is other propaganda that exists within every country that does *not* lead to propaganda that exclusively promotes that country only and does not cause people to "vigorously support" their country. As I've already argued in each round of this debate, the news is simply there to report what is going in the world and inform people of both national and international events. Pro has ultimately failed to define what kind of propaganda he means and provide definitions for his argument--as well outlining *how* this ban would be enforced and what type of media reports would apply. Seemingly he focused on the U. S and Russia, therefore he perhaps should have given a a resolution relating to these countries only. As "propaganda" applies to an extremely broad spectrum [an example you can have both right-wing and left-with propaganda] and can also be relevant to any country; not just the ones that Pro is referring to. In fact, he's ignored pretty much every other nation in the world and argued solely on these two. I will remind voters that Pro has failed to give one single (supported) example of why propaganda should be banned and what types of propaganda should be banned, as well as them specifying definitions in round one; which they absolutely should have done. In round one I negated Pros resolution, and have fully responded to each of their points.
All politics propaganda should be banned

My final reason why we should ban propaganda is because propaganda leads to patriotism. According to google definitions patriotism is vigorous support for one's country. In other words the person wants to die for your country but make it the best. Love it like your mother and family. While, I was watching some Russian television on the first channel (a big channel in Russia) I heard this: we owe our ancestors who kept our country from the Nazis, now we have to keep our country from America. Let me repeat this: we owe our ancestors who kept our country from the Nazis, now we have to keep our country from America. Now what is this? What does this mean? Does this mean that America is bad? The propaganda says so. Now is this true? No. Then I read a U.S.A. Newspaper that was called "good morning news U.S.A." They were almost all articles were about where Russia failed. They did not talk about where Russia succeeded. Why? Let me tell you: they did not want their citizens think that Russia is succeeding at anything and only failing. Now I am taking U.S.A."S and Russia"s propaganda because I found that their propaganda is the strongest (not talking about the U.K.). I think that propaganda should be banned. I think that because propaganda leads to war, changes the way people live, and it leads to patriotism.
All politics propaganda should be banned

My Con has said that "for starters the reasons given are without any information or proof to show them as correct" but we still have 2 more rounds. My evidence that propaganda affects how people live: The first reason why we should ban propaganda is because propaganda affects how people live on earth. Which country is bad and which country is good. For example because of the television propaganda in Russia, almost all of my Russian friends I have that watch television news believe that everything that U.S.A. Does is wrong. This leads to hate on U.S.A. for nothing! Watching a CNN video called "Russia Rolls out high tech new battle tank" says that Vladimir Putin put on display the most powerful forces to show a powerful message that would mean "we have power". Sure that maybe Putin did do that with the idea to show off BUT 9th May parade to Russians was always and will always be the most powerful and happiest event. Of course how important it is to Russians and the 11 million dead soldiers from the war it is not said. Then watching a Russian channel it said that soldiers that want to free Ukraine have attacked. 1 child and 3 grown-ups have died that support Russia. How much people died that day that were wanting to free Ukraine they did not say! To support that propaganda leads to patriotism I have wrote this: The next reason why we should ban propaganda is because it leads to war. As I said before people watch propaganda, which makes them want to do something like destroy America which leads to war. A lot of people think that there will be a war between Russia and U.S.A. To prevent this war we should ban the propaganda because the propaganda makes the people have a hate for nothing. Without the propaganda the hate will slowly die away and the people will not want to destroy each other.Talking about the Ukrainian situation. An interview on CNN of 2 Russian soldiers that were captured said that they were not supposed to be in Ukraine, which means that officially Russia has no direct interaction with the Ukrainian situation. Is this true? Another video called "is Russian president a father" says that Russia"s president Vladimir Putin dismisses all ideas about his relationship with Alina Kabaeva because he wants all the attention to be on Ukraine, with this attention they say other problems will get out of control. What problems they do not say. So maybe there is no problems? Maybe they want Americans to think that Russia has problems? P.S. This is my first time on a debate. I failed.
Gay Marriage should be legal in the USA

Hello "Yes it could be considered a religion under some people's eyes." What religion? There has never been one for gay marriage for 1,000 years, and now all the sudden people want it to be legal, and it's a religion. That doesn't make sense. "we have evolved from the olden times" So? What's your point? I think that there are some principles of are country should never be changed, and that would include gay marriage. "Who says people have to reproduce, do people have to give birth to a child, even when a man and a woman marry are they forced to have a baby?" I'm not saying they have to have a baby. But in generalization, most couples have a natural baby, while gay couples can only adopt kids. Where do you come up with ideas that I'm saying that a man and woman have to have a baby? "if people want to marry other wo/men then let them why should we interfere with there personal concerns." We are interfering with them, for their own good. If 2 people get married of the same sex, they will be discriminated against, and it will ruin their lives. We are protecting them from not getting married. Also, if they ever adopted a kid, he/she would be made fun of. IN today's day, kid are getting fun pf today just for being adopted, now add in having gay marriage. This would ruin the kids childhood, because he would be afraid of going to school, because of the thought of being made fun. Thank you for this debate
Gay Marriage should be legal in the USA

Thank you for joining this debate. I will first rebutt my opponents points and then move to mine. "There is a difference between the stuff you listed and marriage. Marriage is only LEGAL between a man and woman, not to of the same sex." and that's why we're debating about Gay Marriage should be legal in the USA. "That is an interesting argument, but that can be put under the marijuana religion. IS it really a religion, or just an excuse to smoke. It is really fake and don't be surprised if someone comes up with it." Yes it could be considered a religion under some people's eyes. "Our founding fathers would have never allowed this. But it isn't just are founding fathers, up to JFK, all the presidents would have never allowed it." My opponent states that up to JFK which means all the presidents after would theoretically agree to it. Also that is why I am for Gay Marriage being legal because now we have evolved from the olden times before JFK where men and women weren't even equal or maybe all the way back where blacks and whites were seperated. "Another thing is, the average person living from paycheck to paycheck, can only do one thing for human race: have a baby. That is the human life cycle; birth, reproduce, die. A gay couple cannot do that." Who says people have to reproduce, do people have to give birth to a child, even when a man and a woman marry are they forced to have a baby? To some of my points: if people want to marry other wo/men then let them why should we interfere with there personal concerns. Gay people are still people and should have all the rights that we have, religion, race, rights everything including marriage. Thank you for this debate it has been great, Hope to debate you again soon,
Gay Marriage should be legal in the USA

Hello sorry for the delay, "if people have freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion and petition why can't they have freedom of marriage"- CRAZY PENGUIN There is a difference between the stuff you listed and marriage. Marriage is only LEGAL between a man and woman, not to of the same sex. "gay marriage could be put under freedom of religion" That is an interesting argument, but that can be put under the marijuana religion. IS it really a religion, or just an excuse to smoke. It is really fake and don't be surprised if someone comes up with it. Our founding fathers would have never allowed this. But it isn't just are founding fathers, up to JFK, all the presidents would have never allowed it. Another thing is, the average person living from paycheck to paycheck, can only do one thing for human race: have a baby. That is the human life cycle; birth, reproduce, die. A gay couple cannot do that.
Gay Marriage should be legal in the USA

Good morning/night First I will state my opening arguments, Gay Marriage should be legal in the USA because why should we restrict people from leading a lifestyle that they wish to? If that is what they want to do with their life let them, it is not some big crime that they are commiting. Also if people have freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion and petition why can't they have freedom of marriage. Theoretically gay marriage could be put under freedom of religion so why not just let them marry who ever they want to. If they really do love another wo/man and both agree why should we stop them? There shouldn't be any law saying that there can be no gay marriage. Thank you for joining this debate,
The fertilization versus birth debate presents a false dichotomy.

This debate is about whether the fertilization versus birth debate preesents a false dichotomy, not whether you think they are good ideas. Some people believe that life begins at fertilization, implantation, gastrulation, when the fetus has brainwaves, when the baby is born, when the baby can survive, and so on. There are a lot of different views as to when life begins. Fertilization and birth are not the only available views.
The War in Afghanistan is futile and a waste.

I will argue that the war was not futile nor a waste and that it was necessary for the defense of the United States. Id just like it to be known that on the 15th of this month I will be deploying so if for some reason this debate takes to long I will not be able to continue after the 14th and I ask that any rounds forfeited due to this aren't held against me conduct wise.