BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The One True God as Described in the Christian Bible Exists

My opponent to some extent was forfeiting from the beginning. He really didn’t address the key points starting in round 2. I think this is pretty clear so far there are 15 completely unaddressed points: 1a) Reason for deviations from Van Til1b) Reasons for deviations from Francis Schaffer2) Equivocation on logic, between formal mathematical definition and everyday speech3) Multiplicity of propositional calculi4) Does the biblical logic contain all of the rules needed for even basic5) The need for other logics (example: multi valued, fuzzy logics)6) Constructive nature of logics7) Logical construction makes no use of gods.8) Tie between logic and observation putting empiricism on a strong footing. In particular empirical verification as the means to evaluate a logic. 9) Logics that produce the same results (evaluate the same propositions to true) are equivalent.10) Probabilistic defense for areas covered by propositional calculi.11) An undiscovered logic with very similar results to a normative one would like be too complex for humans to use.12) Construction of scientific method13) Construction of morality14) 8 unaddressed bible verses ____ On the uniformity / uniformitarianism issue my opponent has been terribly confusing and has consistently contradicted himself so this was difficult to argue. Regardless: He never provided a clear definition of uniformity. A clear explication for why there is the confusion between his definitions of uniformity and uniformitarianism The biblical creation story’s incompatibility with uniformity as discussed in round 2. Revelations destruction story’s incompatibility (again round 2). Belief in astrology in both the bible and Christian cultures Assuming he means uniformitarianism: Addressing contradictory scientific experiments since 1830s. Bible’s teaching of catastrophism Rejection of this view in Christian cultures Assuming he means uniformity per Aristotle: Since he’s using this broadly in science as a whole and not just philosophy of science how he plans to handle all Renaissance and on science that conflicts like: Galilean relativity, Special & General relativity, Quantum mechanics... A clear definition of uniformity. This is especially important since the argument is that this comes directly from the bible. Variable results from the same experiment, for example double slit example from round 2. Supernatural causation ______The one argument that was addressed several times Then the point that was repeated was the drop claim for uniformity. Just to repeat the counter: a) paragraph 2 of round 1 did in fact address the drop claim.b) Even if we were to pretend that I did drop and thus a single sentence concession could be imaginarily attached to my round 1 that still isn’t damaging.c) All of round 2 qualifies that concession to mean that I am conceding to him his incorrect definition which was uniformitarianism, a discredited 18th century scientific theoryd) Round 3 again further develops this point at length. e) And under this “drops are concessions” my opponent didn’t address this counter and thus conceded.
The One True God as Described in the Christian Bible Exists

I'm sorry my response has to be so short, but I only have 11 minutes to post this argumentt due to circumstances beyond my control.AFFIRMATIVE CASEAlthough my opponent has indeed made a constructive case for an atheistic view of logic, it has been soundly refuted and my oppoennt has not answered that refutation. As for the other 2/3 of my case, not only has he no constructive case concerning it, but he has entirely ignored it to boot. In summary, he has not accounted for logic becasue he can only explain that you can construct logic under an atheistic worldview, but not why or how it works, absent God. He has not accounted for science or morality because he has not even bothered to actually address them. Instead, he equivocated between "uniformity" and "uniformitarianism", scientifically distinct terms, and simply dismissed my morality charge without a legitimate argument.NEGATIVE CASECD-Host: To summarize what has been shown so far: 1) In round 1 it was proven that logic is intrinsic and constructive. It doesn't require ultimate justification since a logic is a formal description of human mental processes. This undercuts the lynchpin of the Presuppositional apologetic.2) The specific additional problems with uniformity were discussed in round 2.3) The inapplicability of the bible and problems with the verses were discussed in round 2.4) The logic model constructed in round 1 is extended to a philosophy of science in round 3. 5) I addressed the argument my opponent "meant" to make about the inability of atheists to justify any philosophy of science and showed how the construction from (4) refuted it (again round 3)6) The science model was extended generically, and morality was an example of the generic extension (round 3)FACT: 1) this was absolutely not proven. He merely asserts this. As I huave said before, he has only proven that he can construct a logic, not why or how that logic works without God.2)Again, my opponent equivocates between uniformity, a foundational supposition of science, and uniformitariansim. He has not directly addressed the argument that the atheistic worldview cannot account for uniformity.3)this was merely asserted, not proven.4)his argument concernuign logic is not invalid, and thus makes this argument invalid
Resolved: Bernie Sanders would be a better president than Martin O' Malley

Thanks for the response. My opponent did not respond to my refutations to his contentions, so they still stand. Defenses: Contention 1 "there's no impact- O'Malley's stance is solid. O'Malley, unlike Sanders, understands that we need to find a balance between privacy and security. Sanders may care about our rights, but O'Malley understands our safety is important too. In fact, I prefer O'Malley's response, as he at least understands that we have to make sacrifices for protection. " Firstly, I have provided evidence that shows that NSA surveillance is unsuccessful and does not protect us. Therefore the Con's attempt to outweigh this point with safety fails. As for impacts, the Pro must realize that I won't spell things out for him. The impact of this contention is obviously that the privacy of the people are being infringed on for no reason. Contention 2 My opponent misrepresents my point. Bernie is NOT a non-interventionist. He just knows that military spending goes to the corrupt military industrial complex. (. http://www.dailydot.com...) Bernie feels that it IS necessary to go after ISIS, but we must have a coalition. Unlike O'Malley who is going to try to tank the world's problems, Bernie is going to get our Middle Eastern Allies involved. (. http://feelthebern.org...) The US is spending unnecessary money and is wasteful (. https://www.americanprogress.org...). Contention 3 Again, the impact is implied. It is obviously that by not leaving such an idea discredited, it will continue to fester and may cause a catastrophe like Iraq again. This myth has been undressed for too long and O'Malley won't do anything to change that. Contention 4 I don't know where the blog which my opponent cites gets their facts from, but here is a better source. It cites a Pew research poll with different, and probably more reliable results (. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...). However, as this article points out, college provides you with with maturity and intellectual growth. A majority also said that it was helpful for helping them with a job or a career. Overall 86% were satisfied with their investment. Contention 5 Firstly, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of O'Malley to oppose the ruling and still have an affiliated superPAC. Scondly, Bernie does not have an affiliated superPAC and you did not cite any evidence that he did. Here are the real facts: . http://www.politifact.com... Contention 6 Common sense and history is my warrant. See what happened to the public option when Obama proposed it. Overall, Bernie Sanders has stronger policy positions than Martin O'Malley.
Resolved: Bernie Sanders would be a better president than Martin O' Malley

I concede to the opposition's framework. However, as Dworkin points out, life without autonomy (liberty) has a morally drab structure. Therefore, autonomy and liberty are both relevant in this debate as they make life worth living. Refutations to Contention 1: $15 Wage: 1. (. http://www.forbes.com...) This shows that in Seattle, when they implemented a $15 minimum wage, employment INCREASED. Con provided analytical evidence of the $15 minimum wage. However analytics are inferior to empirics because analytics are just predictions while empirics are what actually happened. 2. Cross apply my contention 6. 3. "Sanders wishes to raise the minimum wage to $15, but this will have disastrous consequences. O'Malley may have said he wants it at $15, but this is just to contrast with Clinton. In office, he set it to $10.10, so prefer that number as O'Malley's preference. " In Congress, Sanders also pushed for a $10.10 wage. SO how are you excusing O'Malley, but not Sanders? Contention 2: Age Refutation 1. This is an unsupported assumption. Not all old people are senile. 2. His VP will probably be a progressive as well. So death is irrelevant, policies will still be passed. Contention 3: Experience in government Refutations: This contention falls on itself. It says that we need a true leader who has been in this position before and not a politician(? ). Con is saying that O'Malley isn't a politician? ! He was a governor. Also, Sanders has proven his leadership and has voted for progressive policies throughout his entire tenure in congress. I look forward to Con's response.
Resolved: Bernie Sanders would be a better president than Martin O' Malley

Contention 1: Bernie Sanders opposes NSA spying NSA spying is a program which violates the autonomy of many individuals. On that basis alone it should be shut down. It a clear violation of the 4th amendment. Lack of effectiveness: Recent public policy review said that it had not discernible impact on stopping terrorism. [3] O' Malley has called Snowden a traitor [1] and he has often talked vaguely about the NSA program: "The Maryland governor hasn't yet weighed in on the court decision, but said last month he hopes the debate over reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act creates an opportunity to "have a conversation about whether or not we've struck the right balance here. " "I don't think that we should sacrifice our privacy for our security. We have to find a way to protect them both. " he said then. " [4] On the other hand, Sanders is committed to shutting down the spying. [4][2] In the end, Sanders is more concerned about the autonomy of the American people. Contention 2: Military Spending We have a military spending problem. America spends more money than the next 7 countries COMBINED on the military. [6] 54% of our discretionary spending GOES to the military. [7] THsi large amount of spending is unnecessary. Bernie is opposed to expanding the military. O' Malley wants to expand the military. [5] Therefore, Sanders is better with spending the US's money. Contention 3: American Exceptionalism American Exceptionalism is an ideology which is used to justify bad decisions by the US. Ex: Iraq Invasion. Bernie: Against O' Malley: Hasn't cared enough to adress this issue. Contention 4: College Education Education is a right that is important for the US to advance in the world. Today's bachelor's degree is an equivalent of a high school degree back in the day. Bernie Sanders: FREE COLLEGE O'Malley: Refinance loans Sanders said that the college loans will be funded by military spending cuts. Contention 5: Money in Politics Our democracy is under attack by corporations. They are buying our elections. The disastrous Citizen's United ruling has turned our country into an oligarchy. O'Malley: In favor in campaign finance reforn, BUT has a SUPER PAC WHICH HE FUNDS HIS CAMPAIGN WITH. Pure Hypocrisy Sanders: No Super PAC and opposes Citizen's United Contention 6: The Congress factor One must understand that in such a partisan congress, the candidate's initial policy plans may not become a reality. They will have to move some to the right. So, if O'Malley's "soft liberal" rhetoric is put to test in congress, it will be pushed to the center or even center right, while Bernie's "hard-core liberal" rhetoric will be moved to a "soft liberal" position. This is exactly what happened with the Republicans and the Tea Party. The Tea party moved the debate to the right. Look forward to Con's response. Sources: 1. . http://www.ontheissues.org... 2. . http://www.ontheissues.org... 3. . http://www.bloomberg.com... 4. . http://www.cnn.com... 5. . http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com... 6. . http://pgpf.org... 7. . https://www.nationalpriorities.org...
Resolved: Bernie Sanders would be a better president than Martin O' Malley

This round is going to be pretty simple to evaluate. Both sides make good arguments, but some arguments matter more than others. First let me quickly cover the contentions, then weigh them against each other. For his first contention, O'Malley cares about security and safety. He will restrict the NSA too, but also understands how bad terrorism can be. Like I showed in the response to my opponent's war contention, terrorism threatens to destroy the world, and extinction is infinitely worse than any other impact, so O'Malley's is infinitely better. He has no response to this weighing, and the weight of the arguments each side makes is ultimately what will decide the round. For contention 2 what has the UN done so far? Finally Russia is on its own initiative to end terrorism, but working with other nations hasn't worked. I showed that IS is about to get a nuke - we need as much of an effort as possible. The point stands. For contention 3 once again, the impact is minimal. Iraq was caused by the military lying about the presence of weapons, it was just justified afterwards by Republicans by exceptionalism. On contention 4, I'm not saying kids shouldn't go college, just that it will kill the economy since it costs money and reaps no benefits. For contention 5, once again, just because O'Malley has a SuperPac doesn't change his position. And on contention 6, there's still no impact. Under util, being "further left" isn't good and there's no explanation. Now to my contentions. I read the article posted in response to my first one, and it backs up my side! People in the comments disagreed with the author, but the author maintains the position. See this post (http://www.forbes.com...) for even more of the authors thoughts - raising the wage is bad. And for my second contention, the refutation is non-topical. Having a VP has nothing to do with how good of a president one is, which is what the topic states. Sanders dying would make him the worst president since william henry harrison. It would mean he accomplished nothing in offense. But unfortunately for Sanders, passing no policies would be better than raising the minimum wage. Economists agree that raising the wage is a horrible idea. It would cause an economic collapse, and a US economic collapse would lead to extinction. My opponent never responds to this argument. Because of how bad the consequences of this are, and how the refutations to this contention just back it up, it is sufficient to win the debate. But even more, I refute the opponent's contentions, and even show that O'Malley's response is better in a lot of these cases. Because of just how bad the wage rise would be, negative is easily winning today's debate. Thank you.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1) I disagree, there are some people who are asexual or aromantic meaning they do not feel sexual or romantic feelings for another person. So, while I do agree Love may be a additional emotion, it does not mean everyone feels the same. Maybe most people, but not everyone. 2) Can you please reword your definition of romantic love? It is very hard to understand. Would you be able to elaborate and explain further? 3) Are you saying love can occur no matter the others gender? Or that it has to be opposite genders? Also, are you implying one needs to have a sexual relation to be in a romantic relation with another person? I don't believe gender matters when it comes to love. Love is between two people, regardless of their sex. Not only that, but I don't believe one needs to have sexual interactions to be considered in love with another person. Couples save their virginity until marriage, and others don't feel that sex is needed to prove one loves another in a romantic way. 4) A person does not love their mother romantically, they love them paternally, as in parental love. It is different from romantic love, much different. 5) Just because one can not forget their ex-girlfriend, does not mean they are still in love with them. They can miss them, miss their characteristics and the relationship, but it does not mean they still hold feelings for them. 6) Yes you can be close with two people but that does not imply love. You can be close platonically, or relatively such as siblings, but it does not mean you love them. Even if you are in a relationship with a person, it does not imply love. You can certainly have feelings for them but that does not mean those feelings are love. They can be attraction, or lust. 7) Love is more deep and intricate. It is not as easy to love someone as it is to be friends with someone. Love is much more stronger and different from friendship, and while they may hold some similar qualities like trust and honesty, love is much more. It holds a deeper sense of trust, a deeper sense of affection and loyalty to one another.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1.Love is an automatic emotional addition for one to other person which is naturally comes from every single person’s mind. 2.When a person’s imaginatively or pleasingly feeling works in his/her emotion toward for another person and it is connected with in a love this is call a romantic love. 3.If love is a natural relationship so it does not include two different people"s sex or they have to occur any of sexual activity. 4.When a person loves his mother romantically, why cannot he love his wife romantically at the same time? 5.A person can loves two girls at once because he could not forget his ex-girlfriend and currently he is in loves with another girl. 6.You can be close with two persons at once but generally not considerable relationship with each person less value with one than the other. 7.When a person feels friendship, blood relationship, sympathy etc. for more than one person at the same time, so why he would not loves be any different? 8.If a person cannot love two parsons at once, so why the polygamous are romantically loves and involves with more than one person at the same time? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9. Therefore, a person is able to loves more than one people at once. Non-Controversial: premise 1 and 2 is the definitions of love and romantic love, it is non-controversial. Premise 3, 4 are arguments and not changeable. A stronger Premise is #7 which are an argument and a fact. Another argument is #8, but there are many people disagree with this premise because of they are believe in monogamous rule. Controversial: Premise 4, 5 are Controversial because every single person has different opinions. Premise #6 is also an opinion but there are so many people are involve with it and people are arrive it in the public place. Premise 5 is an emotional statement, some people believe the person who loves two people at once that is the person is not a real lover.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. You keep saying one needs to know about love first to understand romantic love and while that may be true, the topic is on romantic love a person feels for more than one person. 3. While others need to respect peoples sexualities and what they choose to do with their lives, this does not show one can romantically love more than one person at a time. 4. While it may not be illegal it is still frowned upon. Not only that but in your example you said he doesn't love anyone else except his mother. Just because that one person loved his mother romantically does not show that everyone or even most people, love their mother the same way. 5. You are contradicting yourself, first you say it is not real love or a relationship and now you say it is love. 6. Okay, having sex with a prostitute does not mean the person loves them. But this also doesn't show how one can love more than one person. 7. Just because one has the same blood as another does not mean they have to love each other. If it was a good and happy relationship, then yes, the man may love both his wives, but you say he loves them out of duty. Would loving someone because you have to be real love? 8. Many of your reasons and examples do not show one romantically loving more than one person at the same time besides the man with two wives, but even then it is love out of duty. Maybe if it was a good relationship then it may be loving more than one person but what you say and showed is not that. 9. Thus, for these reasons, it is not possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. Yes, I just kept the definition of love because of we should know about love first otherwise we would able to love a person romantically. 2. Alright. 3. I agree that everyone has their own beliefs. I also suggest those parsons who do not believe in religion, they should carry on their own statute and respects everyone’s sexuality. 4. Yes but still I will say it is not illegal to loving between mother and son. I also believe it is a romantic love. And at the same time he also can loves his wife romantically. 5. Yes still they are really be in love with each other. Maybe it would not last very long, it is can hurts them and it also remind them their relationship of love even though they broke up. 6. Agree a prostitute helps them with their sexual urges but it does not mean they love the person who did they hire. Yes they are many people in our society who sex with women without marry because they believe, they are enjoying their life or they want to forget their girlfriend. But I do not think the persons who are added with it they are real lover. 7. Agree, yes he also has to love both of wives, the mother of him children, who birthed for him and they got same blood as their father’s. Therefore, it is possible to love more than one person at once.