BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 'Problem of Evil' never succeeds (Attempt 1)

Instead, my opponent takes fault at my premise concerning gratuitous evil, as I have suspected. I will thus dedicate this round to constructing my argument around this premise, as it is both the most important and the most attacked. I also agree that my opponent has perfectly outlined his position - his sole burden is simply to demonstrate all of my arguments from evil (which is just one) are unsuccessful. He need not prove anything else. Lastly, I will agree with my opponent's definitions concerning moral terms in a Christian framework. I am glad to see he has not fiddled with semantical rewiring, and that the intent of this debate has been kept pure. ==================== Argument from Evil - Gratuitous Evil ==================== Now, my opponent levels one major criticism of my argument on the onset - he charges that my argument takes formation as a logical attack rather than an evidential one. He claims that the existence of gratuitous evil and God is logically incompatible rather than it being an improbable critique. And yes, his conclusion is correct - that what I must do is to prove the probability that there are some evils which are gratuitous. I do want to point out that my argument IS evidential: it rests on the idea that even after careful inspection of an example in which evil has occurred, there would be no good reason to believe that God would have an adequate reason to allow such an instance. Also realize that I never claimed that ALL evils are gratuitous - rather, that there are simply some which are. I propose examples such as natural disasters (famine, tsunamis, etc. ) or the life of a baby who's life is mostly composed of suffering are instances in which there is no adequate reason to explain away such an event. So here's the challenge to my opponent: I ask of him to provide an adequate explanation for natural evils or instances in which the majority of a baby's life is suffering. The point about the latter example is that a common theodicy is to say that some instance of evil was meant there to lead to some greater good - but if a baby's life is mostly suffering (such as African babies being born into starvation and hardship, then quickly dying) it would seem highly improbably for such a theodicy to work. If such examples do exist, which I would think to be quite uncontroversial, then my opponent would have to give an adequate moral reason for their existence. ==================== Conclusion ==================== As you can see, though logical possibility remains for the compatibility between evil and God if there is no adequate reason to explain an act of evil, then the probability of God existing is unlikely as well. Obviously, it doesn't preclude it in certainty but I never argued that, did I? If we have no good reason to believe referring to God can excuse away such instances of evil, then the AE has fulfilled it's purpose - it has demonstrated the improbability of God.
Abortion

Since this is my closing argument, I would prefer it if you would only respond to issues brought up in this and the last round, as I will not have a chance to respond.Right, as you've seen with my previous rounds, I've actually only been responding to what you said in the same round. I'm not going to suddenly respond to what you've said in previous rounds with new arguments, I find that unfair. Instead, better pre-natal and pregnancy treatment should be made available to pregnant women to prevent these deaths instead.I agree that this should take place as well, however I don't know that we would ever be able to eliminate all maternal deaths from pregnancy. It's really surprising we haven't yet with how far advanced technology is. I think abortion should be a last resort if it takes place after 7 weeks. Having it highly discouraged would be a good idea, but not in every situation was it the mother's fault that they didn't abort before 7 weeks was up. Why should the mother be punished and have to carry the fetus to term for something that was not their own fault?Guaranteeing your own life by sacrificing another is not a choice that should be legal to make in society.However, as pointed out before, there's not only the mother's right to life at risk, but also the mother's bodily integrity/autonomy. One right of the mother's is certainly violated, and the second, the right to life, is a possibility. Preventing the violation of 1 right and the potential of a second right by violating only one right(the fetus' right to life) seems to be the more moral and logical decision. Again, if we had a perfect world where it was possible for any mother to get an abortion, then we should have it illegal past 7 weeks, but until we have that perfect situation where every mother can get an abortion, I think it needs to be allowed past 7 weeks.
Abortion

I understand your argument; however, I simply cannot see how it applies to real world abortion discussions or compares in impact to the cost of an abortion. First off, any policy restricting abortion past 6-8 weeks would have the obvious exception clause for danger to a mothers life. This could be medically determined by any practicing doctor. Even countries with the strictest abortion laws, such as Poland or Ireland, have these exceptions. [1] Another factor to look at is the amount of women that die each year in childbirth. The accepted statistic is 17.8 in every 100,000. For sake of enhancing the opponents argument, lets round this to 20 in every 100,000. Since 4 million children are born a year [2], we can assume the number of women that die during childbirth is somewhere below 800 a year. Many of these deaths could be prevented with the abortion procedure exception, and the rest are true tragedies. However, roughly 1 million abortions occur a year [3], according to the most recent data, and at least ten or up to a hundred thousand of those deaths would be past the point where we determined a fetus becomes a human earlier in the round. A few hundred women simply cannot outweigh the tens of thousands of human babies that are killed each year. Therefore, the answer to maternal deaths simply cannot be legal and widespread abortion. Instead, better pre-natal and pregnancy treatment should be made available to pregnant women to prevent these deaths instead. Addressing your last line, the mere possibility of a women being killed by a fetus does not justify the act of abortion. Guaranteeing your own life by sacrificing another is not a choice that should be legal to make in society. P.S. Since this is my closing argument, I would prefer it if you would only respond to issues brought up in this and the last round, as I will not have a chance to respond. [1]http://www.bbc.com... [2]http://www.susps.org... [3]https://www.guttmacher.org...
Abortion

I think I will go about this another way, rather than responding to each of my opponent's rebuttals, I will try to address the reason why they think abortion should be illegal beyond a certain point and let my opponent's arguments stand as they are against what I brought up. My opponent admitted that, "Although there are many negative impacts a human mother may experience, none of these (except life of the mother) can outweigh the loss of a human life. "The parentheses is what matters for my next argument. Despite our ability to predict whether a mother would die from pregnancy, there are still hundreds of women who die every year from pregnancy, unexpectedly[1]. Since there is a chance for any mother to die from a pregnancy, they should then be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, since the fetus could potentially harm the mother's right to life, even beyond the first 6 months until we have the issues I outlined above preventing women from being able to get an abortion are addressed. Sources:[1] https://www.cdc.gov...;
DNA Database/ Profiling

Cost effectiveness DNA databases are more cost effective compared to other police counterparts. Without the use of DNA databases, it becomes more difficult to find individual subjects. This normally means increasing the task force by hiring more police officers which can result to the price of $26,300 to $62,500. The cost of preventing a serious offence by using DNA profiling is 70$. Calculations state that DNA databases are between 100 and 1,000 times more cost-effective compared to other law enforcement tools. Collecting and analyzing a DNA sample found in a crime scene is less than $40. In the United States, DNA samples in some cases only cost less than $20. Looking at the costs of crimes, DNA databases increase savings. Each profile resulted in 0.57 fewer serious offenses. Some believe the amount it costs to insert someone into a DNA database is too much. There is a price required to pay. Federal governments and 2010 spent approximately 30.5 million adding 761,509 offender profiles to DNA databases. However; because of this, the government saved 21 billion by preventing new crimes. Subtracting these numbers, you get a twenty billion, nine hundred, sixty-nine million, five hundred thousand difference. As seen through these calculations, it is much more beneficiary to collect DNA samples compared to none at all. https://news.virginia.edu...
DNA Database/ Profiling

Logistics are the final reason why DNA databases are a bad idea for the entire world. Even under current laws collecting DNA from criminals, there are differences on who is responsible for taking and handling the DNA. This would cause a huge problem for the entire population. Is there a need to guard against duplicate samples? How would know if a sample has already been taken for that person so there is no duplicates. Duplicates would then cause the government to be losing money and putting us in more debt. It is said that DNA testing for paternity test cost $200. So if the whole population had to get a DNA sample taken who would pay for the test and storage? SOURCES: nij.gov
DNA Database/ Profiling

DNA databases exonerates wrongfully convicted defendants. Along with this, DNA allows for the release for those wrongfully incriminated. Throughout history, there have been multiple cases of evidence seeming to prove an individual wrong when in actuality, they are innocent. However, at the time of trial, they are wrongfully convicted. With the new advancements in technology, the police are allowed to go back and further gather evidence. This has allowed for the release of those wrongfully convicted and with particular people"s DNA already at the crime scene, those who are suspected can then be exonerated and dismissed. This allows for a quick capture of the actual criminal by ignoring those without matched DNA to that of the crime scene. -https://www.ncjrs.gov...
DNA Database/ Profiling

Another reason DNA databases are a bad idea is due to the fact that it directly goes against everyone's 4th amendment. Taking a sample from someones body to have DNA is considered a search/seize of that person. Getting that sample without a valid warrant is a direct violation of the 4th amendment. FBI manages a DNA index system called CODIS which has DNA data on violent crimes. So if you take a sample from everyone, it then makes them feel like criminals as well. The 4th amendment protects two fundamental liberty interest- right to privacy, and freedom from arbitrary innovations. SOURCE: www.fbi.gov www.uclalawreview.org www.law.cornel.edu
DNA Database/ Profiling

DNA databases reduce crime rates Large DNA databases are connected to lower crime rates. DNA databases have other benefits besides the assistance of finding perpetrators. DNA databases yield a plethora of other benefits. One being, the reduction of crimes being committed. In a study from 2000 to 2008, it was concluded that DNA databases were associated to a reduction of crimes including the following: A 6.6% decrease in rapes A 2.9% decrease in aggravated assaults A 3.2% decrease in murders A 5.4% decrease in vehicle thefts. These numbers demonstrate that those who are considering committing these crimes are more wary due to the extraction of DNA at crime scenes and the greater possibility of being convicted. Although these numbers may seem small, they are still significant decreases that would be non-existent without the presence of DNA databases. It is better to have decreasing crime rates because of the association to DNA databases compared to having the same or increasing crime rates without the databases. Also, with time will come advancement in technology and subsequently, better results when using these databases. This can directly relate to more decreasing crime rates. Criminals and offenders who are attempting crimes and are unaware of the cautions to take are deterred from committing such crimes in the fear of being caught due to leaving evidence such as DNA. DNA databases result in fewer catches for multiple reasons. These include a decreased amount of crimes and fewer, but more accurate arrests because of the reliability of DNA databases. -https://news.virginia.edu...
DNA Database/ Profiling

Access to and use of the DNA can be a struggle with a DNA database of everyone in the world. Not all people trust the public authority with something as import as all of there life history.Even in current use of DNA databases not all states are consistent with criminals. So why bother with everyone. DNA databases with criminals have had issues with hacking into people hacking into them. With the whole nation having there DNA in a database there would be an even bigger problem with that kind of issue. SOURCE: www.medicalnewstoday.com www.pbs.org www.blackhat.com
DNA Database/ Profiling

DNA helps solve cases DNA has consistently helped police officers find the perpetrators of criminals. In New Zealand, their hit rate for crime samples are 58%. Meaning, 58% of all crime samples entered into the DNA database will correspond with an individual of the National DNA database. 34% of all crime samples entered onto the Crime Sample Database will connect or correspond to another crime. The Texas Department of Public Safety worked with The DNA Index System (CODIS) and the results were clearly evident. Since 1998, the DNA lab has helped solve 644 homicides, 3,399 sexual assaults, 4,273 burglaries, 556 robberies, and hundreds of other crimes in Texas along with other states. Throughout history, technology has advance exponentially and with that has come the DNA database. Several cases that could not be solved and all leads were exhausted are left untouched. These are referred to as "Cold Cases." Evidence from all cases is then stored and left alone normally. However; DNA database has allowed for a new world of possibilities when it came to evidence. With the extraction of DNA that can be found on things including finger prints, hair, and bodily fluids, along with the large amount of people within databases, new possibilities for finding the perpetrators has occurred with the advancements in technology. DNA databases also helps solve crimes that tie together. An example is a man known as the Twilight Rapist. With the DNA databases searching for those who have been incriminated for sexual assaults, it was possible to find the man and the police realized he was a serial rapist. A DNA test presented the same DNA that was seen on the women and crime scene which allowed the incarceration and imprisonment of this criminal. http: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us...
DNA Database/ Profiling

Wrongful convictions are another issue with the holding of human DNA and DNA databases. DNA evidence can be used incorrectly and can be used to sway a jury. Personal errors on the users make the use of it less than 100% accurate. DNA sample mix ups is the most common source of false matches. When trying to use DNA at crime scenes, there can be many problems. DNA degrades if it is not kept cool and dry, therefore by the time the law enforcement get to the scene, the DNA could already be bad. This all leads to inaccurate DNA typing. SOURCES: www.brighthub.com www.utexas.edu
DNA Database/ Profiling

DNA helps catch repetitive offenders and privacy Based off a study in the University of Virginia, 23.4 % of people who are stored in a database who have had a past of violent crimes are more likely to be convicted of crime within three years compared to those who are unprofiled. Meaning, those who have already been convicted are likely to commit more crimes and with their information in the DNA database, they are easier to apprehend, compared to their unprofiled counterparts. The argument of DNA databases are an invasion of privacy become irrelevant as databases consist of convicted criminals and those tried for criminal acts. Therefore, based off the data listed above, it is a benefit to have these insertions of DNA. Looking at those who are in DNA databases without criminal records. Their DNA can reveal medical records that may assist in future prevention of that family. It can also allow doctors a look at possible diseases based off past generations. There are multiple privacy laws in place for the privacy of DNA. httss://news.virginia.edu...
DNA Database/ Profiling

With DNA databases there are many privacy concerns. To begin, DNA can track a persons medical history, ancestry, gender, and even if a person is adopted or not. You never know what will happen if that kind of info falls into the wrong hands. Even with criminals when their DNA is taken after a major crime, not all of their personal information is exposed to people, so why would you risk letting a ton of non- criminal humans. Human rights is something all humans have due to the fact that they are human. Privacy to personal information is one of those rights, it is not right to take away a human's rights. SOURCES: www.constitutioncampaign.org www.cnn.org (Privacy vs. Prosecution)
Resolved: It is impossible to prove anything

"I can prove to you that you are here through the statement by Rene Descartes"How can one prove the the author of these words was named Rene Descartes? Also, Con cannot know that I think. Con can simply believe that I think."You are thinking"How can prove oen prove a statement such as this? If I am merely a figment of their imagination, then I am not thinking, Con is."You yourself have proven that you are on this site by creating this debate and responding to my first argument"How can one claim that I created this debate, when for all Con can know, I may not be the creator of this debate? I could be any of seven billion people, it's more likely that I am not the creator. "You are reading these words"Maybe I am approaching this blindly and have perfectly guessed everything that Con has said. Con cannot truly know if I am reading these words, for I may be a scribe of the reader. If I am not reading, but writing, then this claim is incorrect."Your existence proves"As I have already shown the fallacy in Con's "proof" of existence, this statement probably holds no water."There is proof it is your turn to say something in this debate."If I can avoid using the tenth word of Con's claim, then it is probably false. "if they do say something than they have proven it was their turn to argue"Will I have proven it was my turn, or will I have stolen 9spaceking's turn to give an argument? If it was his turn, and I merely interjected and stole his round, then it may not have been my turn to argue.
Resolved: It is impossible to prove anything

I do not have the ability to make these words bold or italic without there being no spaces between paragraphs, so I shall do it like this. I can prove all these things... - Your existence: I can prove to you that you are here through the statement by Rene Descartes, "I think, therefore I am." You are thinking in order to write any argument in any round of this debate. [1] Existence is key to this because it branches onto other things I can prove. You yourself have proven that you are on this site by creating this debate and responding to my first argument. Even if you are a robot, you--whoever you are--still exist because you wrote the previous words. - You are reading these words: Your existence proves that you are reading these words. -This site: Since you are reading these words, there is such a thing as DDO. Do I need to say more? Oh yes... - There is proof it is your turn to say something in this debate. Forfeiting would be the only way to disprove this statement, and you almost never win a debate by forfeiting! [2] Round 3 is coming up and my opponent must say something otherwise they forfeit, but if they do say something than they have proven it was their turn to argue. Your turn! Sources [1] http://quotes.yourdictionary.com... [2] Quitters never win, and no, forfeiters don't either. http://forum.ea.com...
Resolved: It is impossible to prove anything

There's nothing I can do? I can ask for evidence that this site exists. I believe that Con has contended that this site exists, and therefore they must prove it exists. I believe that I have nothing to rebut here because Con has merely provided a claim and nothing else. Does the site exist? I don't know, I believe that I cannot know. I believe that I can question the existence of this site, and I do not have to prove that it does not exist, as that is impossible. Is it Con's turn? Possibly.
Resolved: It is impossible to prove anything

If you try to prove that it is impossible to prove anything, I win. If I try to prove that you can't prove anything, my opponent will try to argue that he can't prove that he can't prove anything, but he can't prove that because nothing is provable therefore I win. If my opponent doesn't try to prove anything, he doesn't prove that it's impossible to prove anything, so I win. ARGUMENTS I can prove to you that this site exists. You cannot object that in any way as long as you follow the definition. If you need any more proof you must give me something that I can't prove as long as it doesn't have anything to do with the supernatural and scientific "facts," partly because that is a completely different discussion that does not belong here. Really, there is nothing you can do because, if you disprove me, you are proving something: thus your resolution is wrong and I win. http://www.google.com... Your turn.
Regardless of maturity, The opinion of kids ( up to about 16 ) isn't taken seriously by most adults

IT'S IRRELEVANT WHETHER KIDS ARE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO LEARN. THE FACT IS KIDS AREN'T ACCOMPLISHED OR SKILLED ENOUGH TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. THAT'S LIFE. In the last round, Pro's main argument is that kids aren't given chances to experience things. It's not their fault, they don't know anything and it shouldn't be held against them. Well, it's not about blame; it's about reality. There are no free rides in life. Kids need to plug away at entry level jobs and work hard until they become adept. They will be taken seriously later. That's just how the world works. Sorry. ADULTS MUST BASE THEIR OPINIONS ON THE BEHAVIOR OF THE MAJORITY. So...although most kids are irresponsible and there might be a few rare kids that are not, we should give them all the benefit of the doubt? For example, allow them to head projects rather someone with an extensive resume? I'm sorry but that's foolish. Since most kids don't have the requisite knowledge, we have to assume the same for all.
Regardless of maturity, The opinion of kids ( up to about 16 ) isn't taken seriously by most adults

COUNTER TO CON'S ARGUMENTSWe are forced to base our opinion on textbooks because adults don't let us experience.As i say below, We are not allowed to work, We are not allowed to build houses, We are not allowed to even manage our own money most of the time.COUNTER TO CON'S COUNTER TO PRO'S ARGUMENTSA.The title says 'Regardless of maturity ..... ', By this is meant that kids that ARE mature don't even get a chance to be taken seriouslyI would appreciate it if you could bear this in mind in future arguments.B. "Kids are too caught up in playing, hanging out, drinking, and generally wasting time"Once again, The Title, '...... ( Up to about 16 ) ......'. Where i live 16 year olds can't drink and normally don't go to college."They haven't worked a day in their lives."We aren't allowed to work. I am in my first few years of high school and have done several unpaid 'Jobs' for coding projects. If I could work for pay, I would