BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
everyone has the freedom to choose his field of study at university. (No matter what's his average a

Alright. The grammar is getting worse and worse, so I'll do my best. This third round for the Pro is grounds to give me S&G points. Looking toward the arguments. My opponent says that people are more likely to fail when getting forced to take classes, but this argument is non-unique because it happens in universities today when students are allowed to chose their classes. Furthering allowing this in the Pro world means that more students, not less are likely to fail. Therefore, vote Con. Simply saying that one should follow their dreams isn't an argument and can also be disregarded in the debate. The Pro has no offense in the debate and my points are untested. THEREFORE, VOTE CON. Thank you.
Objective Moral Values and Duties Show that God Exists

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. This is due to the grounding problem. If God doesn't exist, then there is no objective standard by which moral values can be established. Each of us (or each society) can choose its own moral code, and there is no "right" or "wrong" to it. Morality is merely a matter of preference (although that preference may be informed by evolutionary history, society, etc). 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. Moral values and duties are an undeniable feature of our experience. We don't just dislike horrible acts like rape and child abuse, deep down we know that they are really wrong. It has been said before that, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to abuse little children is just as wrong as the man who says 2 + 2 = 5." This is no less true of societies in general. The Nazi society within Germany that perpetrated the holocaust could not, by majority vote, make the holocaust a moral good. 3. Therefore, God exists. If premises 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion follows logically and inescapably. If objective moral values and duties can only exist if God exists, and if objective moral values and duties do exist, then God exists.
Pascal's Wager

Thank you for your superb conduct. (I am having anything but hurricane whether here in Israel, but my family just evacuated. I am glad you were able to get your last round in. ) C1) "According to your definitions, the claim "god exists" is still an extraordinary claim. .. These are attributes that seem to contradict one another. .. it is impossible! " Unfortunately my opponent does not explain why it is imposable. Furthermore my opponent did not respond to the last point made on this contention. c2) "I feel I have rebutted your arguments. I'll leave this to voters to decide. " I will repeat what I wrote in the previous rounds: "I also wrote:"I had written 4 other points on that argument, (see R1) which were not rejected. " and "The other points made in R1 suffice. "" I keep saying I made 4 other arguments on this point, that were untouched. So even if that one is mute. The other 4 stand. c3) Atheists wager: The atheists wager seems to assume that even if their is a god there there is no reward for believing and no punishment for not doing so. I don't understand how an atheist can know what god does. Most theist who believe in god and claim to have his word say that god says there is heaven and hell for belief and non belief. How can the atheists know that god doesn't care if you believe in him. At the very least play on the side of caution, as Pascal's wager goes, if there is nothing to lose and everything to gain, do it, even if you are not shore. (Even if some how you did know that there is no heaven and hell for belief in god. I provided 3 reasons in the previous round why you should still follow the way of god. ) c4) Why my opponent is an atheist: "It doesn't matter if he might because we already eliminated the very possibility of his existence. " My opponents words seem to be in contradiction, I sent him a message. For the time being I will assume he just meant the 2nd half of the sentence. In (R3 and) R4 I gave a detailed 3 part response to my opponents arguments. It seemed from R4 that these were accepted. As he asked in R4: "If we can prove God doesn't exist, why on earth should we wager he does? " Which appears he accepted my response to his disproving of god. In R4 I answered his question. Now he goes back to stating that "we already eliminated the very possibility of his existence. " All I can say is I gave a very detailed response in R4 which my opponent seemed to agree to and certainly did not raise any rebuttal against it. ((Regarding the last thing, I apologize, I asked some one else to insert that when I didn't have computer access. It was typed in the wrong place and not in full. (It was supposed to be in "C1" as a 4th response. In full it was to read that, "the claim that such a complex and intricate world came from nothing all by itself is an extraordinary claim". obviously, I cannot count this argument as it wasn't made. )))
Pascal's Wager

Thank you for your superb conduct. Stay safe for anyone who is in Irene's path!According to your definitions, the claim "god exists" is still an extraordinary claim. Based on the Theistic definitions and characteristics of "god", he is certainly going beyond what is usual, and very remarkable.In rebuttal to response 1 it is clear that God's existence is extraordinary. Remember: God is supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, all-just yet all-merciful. These are attributes that seem to contradict one another. One cannot be all-knowing and all-powerful and all-just and all-merciful...it is impossible!RR2) The claim "god exists" is the most extraordinary claim one can make because of the characteristics of god. Would you worship the Invisible Pink Unicorn to stay safe even though there is a mountain of evidence against her existence? It is the same way. Thus we get to the atheist wager which I will elaborate on.RR3) I anticipate the debate and wish you luck. For the counter arguments, the name is basically "(Name of theistic argument) refuted.)"On C2) I feel I have rebuted your arguments. I'll leave this to voters to decide.C3) Atheist wager.For clarity, here is what we are arguing. [1] See source 1 if you are still confused. Belief in god (B) No belief in god (~B) Good life (L) +∞ (heaven) +∞ (heaven) Evil life (~L) -∞ (hell) -∞ (hell) No benevolent god exists Belief in god (B) No belief in god (~B) Good life (L) +X (positive legacy) +X (positive legacy) Evil life (~L) -X (negative legacy) -X (negative legacy) C4) AtheistTo answer my opponents final question:"If we can prove God doesn't exist, why on earth should we wager he does?"The ans. According to Pascal's wager is, bec. He might, and you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.It doesn't matter if he might because we already eliminated the very possibility of his existence.Rebuttal Response 4)I don't know what my opponent is stating here. I think he is using a form of the design argument which begs the question: "Who created God?" Surely, God has to be more complex than anything he created!| Conclusion |My opponent has not yet demonstrated why it is better to wager God exists than he doesn't. Voters, it is all up to you.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager
Pascal's Wager

I thank truthseeer for an excellent debate and for showing superb conduct throught.C1: PW gives no vidence for God. "I further challenge my opponents contention that there is no strong evidence for god. Here are some:"Remember how I defined an extraordinary claim.Extraordinary claim: a claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences of the world. Extraordinary evidence: any evidence that would verify the extraordinary claim.Not a one of those arguments are extraordinary evidence. In fact, all of them have been refuted in some way or another. We can have a debate on that later.Cosmological argument rebuttal [1] and further on infidels.org. I won't link every one of them.C2: PW Does not tell you which god to worship.My opponent drops the university analogy. He tells me to choose the religion of "seekers of God". Huh? I honestly don't quite understand what that is.Also, how can we know that God is correct?C3: Atheist WagerI will certainly not worship any god that actually cares wheither or not we worship him. I'd much rather worship a god that basis salvation on works and moral deeds.Furthermore, how does my opponent know that God does care if you worship him or not?C4: Why I am an AtheistAnd as stated earlier, all of them can be refuted--which is for another debate. Remember, there is also a plethora of evidence against god's existence. That, of course, is for another debate.If we can prove God doesn't exist, why on earth should we wager he does?| CONCLUSION |My opponent has not yet convinced me that it is better to wager god exists and worship him than to wager he does not. He has not rebutted my arguments convincingly.As of now, I urge a CON vote.Sources1. http://tinyurl.com... (For cosmological rebuttal)
Pascal's Wager

Thanks once again for your fascinating arguments.C1: PW Gives no evidence for GodFrom 1st round:"1a)doesn't intend to prove gods existence it is an imperative to worship god even without being certain."My opponent admits that it does not give evidence for his existence. Therefore, we should automatically reject pascals wager for people like me who demand proof.1. If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false. 2. The claim that a god exists is an extraordinary claim. 3. Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false. 4. There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that a god exists. 5. Therefore, the claim that a god exists may be considered false. [1]What I am trying to say is that the existence of God is the most extraordinary claim that anyone can make. Thus, if one cannot prove its existence with extraordinary proof, then the claim should be regarded false.C2: Pascal's Wager (PW) does not tell you which God to worship.And I already addressed yours. "Pascal's wager tells the non believer to serve god.The atheist responds "well which one? Since I don't know which one I will serve none."This is analogous to a person who has been convinced it is better to go to university then not to do so, but doesn't go bec. "Which one?". The obvious answer is try to figure it out. Pascal's wager is an imperative to serve god the fact that you don't know how is not reason not to serve him. It is reason to try to find out how."I do not see the paralell. Worshiping God can have dire consequences if the god you worship is false and another god is true. Your eternality rests on it.C3: The Atheist's WagerSorry if you do not understand. The logic of the wager is simply that God would not care if you worship him or not. Therefore, it makes no difference if we worship him or not. Just be good. If you lead a good life you have the joy of leaving a positive legacy.C4: Reasons why I am an atheist [2] [3]I honestly have not a clue what my opponent is trying to say. I think, from the looks of the argument, he is using the free-will defense (FWD hereafter).I wish to respond to show how the reason for non-belief is sound and teh FWD does not work.1) Giving evidence for his existence does not interfer with FW.A) Jesus supposedly performed miracles and people still did not believe in him. Therefore, it is possible to assume that evidence=/=free will.B) God is omnipotent. Therefore, he knows everything. If he knows everything, how can we still have free will?Again, I ask that you clarify.Thank you and back to you!Sources1. http://tinyurl.com...;2. http://tinyurl.com...;3. http://tinyurl.com...;
The government should be allowed to listen in on phone calls or put up hidden cameras etc.

The government and the mob are completely the same thing. What do you call somebody who steals? There called a robber, but the government calls it taxes. What happens to me when I kill somebody? I'm labeled as a murder and throw into prison. What happens when the government kills people? Its called "protecting our interests" and labeled as heroic. Does might make right? If the government does it in full scale and thugs do it in little scale are they the same thing? I'm sorry but big a little thugs have thuggery in common even if one has stars and strips on them. Like Ben Franklin said "A highwayman is a much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang" Yes we do live in that society. Every day we a heading to a police state. I could give you story after story of police (the government) abusing their power and being corrupt. So I think I will. http://www.lewrockwell.com... James Emerick Dean: Executed By the Police http://www.lewrockwell.com... America's Police Brutality Pandemic Now I can't find the one article from July, This one man's car caught on fire, he was on fire eventually got put out the police tasered him two times and then shot him in the head We should care what they do because as I have said the government is a group of violent thugs. Now see the thing I don't have anything to hide either but the thing is I don't what people to know what I'm doing 24/7 good or bad its my life not yours and not the governments. Its very disturbing to me that you would give up your right to privacy so easily. Well of course they'll set it up in just one or two house here or there. But what is stopping them from puting them in every house "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington The purpose of government is to protect our rights not to infringe on them. As stared in the declaration of independence, and backed up with the constitution and the bill of right as I have stated the 4th amendment states pretty clearly what the government can do with our privacy; they can't do a thing with it
The government should be allowed to listen in on phone calls or put up hidden cameras etc.

The mob and the governent are not at all the same things at all. Firstly, we don't live in a society where the government is corrupt and will, for example, kill us if we don't agree with them. Secondly, why do we care if they know what we're doing? Like I said, as long as we're not hiding anything there should be no reason to want privacy. Of course the terrorists will plot inside houses, then of course there should be at least micriphones or something installed in houses. Besides they don't have to set them up in every house or on every street... just high-priority ones or ones that are under suspicion. Of course it would be most effective if no one knew about it so that they wouldn't be able to hide their intentions or move to different places.
The government should be allowed to listen in on phone calls or put up hidden cameras etc.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I must say where do you draw the line? First they wire-tap and hidden cameras, then they have cameras out in the open public, and then we have cameras in the house because of course the terrorists would be plotting in the house not in the open, and then we can't we can do a thing with out our masters knowing about it. If they can do one they can do the other. Maybe right now supposedly they don't care what we say but what happen when they do care. You have already given them the power to do such. Now what would you say if any other group did this? What if the mob came into your house and we are going to watch over your house and make sure nothing "bad" happens to it. And at the same time where going to make sure that you don't speak bad about us or do something that we don't like, because of course we have all the guns. Does might make right? And don't you think the telescreens in 1984 were installed for the same reason? To make sure nobody does anything "bad"?
The government should be allowed to listen in on phone calls or put up hidden cameras etc.

Firstly I'd just like to say: If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. I think it is perfectly acceptable for government agencies to be able to obtain information about potential terrorists in any way possible. If that includes wire-tapping or hidden cameras being put up everywhere, or any other form of surveillence, so be it. There is really nothing at all to be worried about if you have nothing to hide. For example; the government isn't going to care if they overhear someone saying how many times a week they have sex and/or with whom, they aren't going to record it and tell all of said person's acquaintances and friends etc. The benefit of it definitely out weighs the detriments, if there are any detriments to begin with. If it leads to the capture of even one terrorist or even someone like a murderer or rapist or anyone detrimental to society then it has served its purpose. It may effectively help society become less riddled with social parasites and improve the quality of people in a society all together.
Most Police Officers Should Not Carry Firearms

No arguments will be presented by either side. The subsequent rounds will consist of opening arguments, counter arguments, and closing arguments. Most Police OfficersThe following kinds of officers are included"State police officers, sometimes called state troopers or highway patrol officers, arrest criminals and patrol highways to enforce motor vehicle laws and regulations. ""Uniformed police officers have general law enforcement duties, including maintaining regular patrols and responding to calls for service. Much of their time is spent responding to calls and doing paperwork. They may direct traffic at the scene of an accident, investigate a burglary, or give first aid to an accident victim. In large police departments, officers usually are assigned to a specific type of duty. Many police agencies are involved in community policing–a practice in which an officer builds relationships with the citizens of local neighborhoods and mobilizes the public to help fight crime. ""Specialized assignments Officers can specialize in a particular field, such as chemical and microscopic analysis, training and firearms instruction, or handwriting and fingerprint identification. Others work with special units, such as horseback, bicycle, motorcycle, or harbor patrol; canine corps. ""Detectives are plainclothes investigators who gather facts and collect evidence for criminal cases. Some are assigned to interagency task forces to combat specific types of crime. They conduct interviews, examine records, observe the activities of suspects, and participate in raids or arrests. Detectives and state and federal agents and inspectors usually specialize in investigating one type of violation, such as homicide or fraud. They are assigned cases on a rotating basis and work on them until an arrest and conviction is made or until the case is dropped. ""Fish and game wardens enforce fishing, hunting, and boating laws. They patrol hunting and fishing areas, conduct search and rescue operations, investigate complaints and accidents, and aid in prosecuting court cases. ". http://discoverpolicing.org...ExceptionsThe following kinds of officers are not included. Any Officer involved in a raid or planned felony arrest for the duration of the operation. i. e. SWAT forces, Detectives, DEA, etc. Special Jurisdiction Police agencies have special geographic jurisdictions and enforcement responsibilities. Public college and university police forces, public school district police, and agencies serving transportation systems and facilities are examples.
Most Police Officers Should Not Carry Firearms

My opponent seems content to make my arguments for me, and he begins to do so in the first two paragraphs. First a correction, the statistical table my opponent refers to details justifiable homicide by law enforcement with a weapon during the years 2006-2010, it does not list any figures from 2014. Furthermore, the number 396 does not appear anywhere on the table. The actual number of justifiable homicides by law enforcement officers in the line of duty with a weapon was 444.[1] My opponent seems to miss the obvious distinction that these killings were JUSTIFIED. These officers were acting in their official capacities and acted in a legal manner to defend themselves or the public. My opponent omits that during the same year, 48,315 officers were assaulted while performing their duties [2], and 51 were feloniously killed [3]. It is not hard to imagine how many more officers would be dead were it not for the 444 justified homicides. Dealing with suspected felons is not unusual for police, but the majority of officers killed were not killed under this circumstance, but under circumstances where my opponent has insisted they should not carry firearms. Of the 51 officers killed, only 8 died during an arrest or tactical situation. 11 were killed responding to disturbance calls, 9 were fatally injured during traffic pursuits or stops, 7 officers were killed in ambush situations, 5 officers were conducting investigative activity (surveillance, search, interview, etc.), 3 officers were handling persons with mental illnesses, and 1 officer was killed in an unprovoked attack.[3] Of the officers killed, 31 were assigned to vehicle patrol at the time of the incident. These would be the officers my opponent was derisively referring to when he said "Traffic Cops do not need to be packing heat when they pull over your grandmother for running a red light. Beat Cops do not need to be packing heat as they patrol your neighborhood. Uniformed officers do not need to be locked and loaded as they respond to general calls." My opponent does not argue a rampant abuse of force by officers, in fact he doesn't cite a single example that would justify rendering helpless those assigned to help us. _______ 1. https://ucr.fbi.gov... 2. https://ucr.fbi.gov... 3. https://ucr.fbi.gov...