BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Libertarianism is flawed

The Larry situation was taken to the absurd by stating that he could find no one to help him. I find it hard to believe that Larry couldn't get a ride for his daughter from a local church for a while until he could save up enough money to buy a beater car. Pro's next situation is that of a failing company breaking the law in order to beat its competition. What really bothered me about this scenario is that Pro sees this as how a free market is supposed to work. And make no mistake about it, he intends for this scenario to show how a free market economy is just as bad as one ran by the government. Pro states the following "Which brings me to my next criticism of libertarianism. It's biased towards the free market over government." Pro then asks us "why is it only the government that can sponsored terrorism, international espionage, and manipulating the press to convince the people to ignore the obvious problems..." He then goes on and uses Fox as a real world example of a corporation that engages in the actions above. I personally don't like to accuse someone or something of wrong doing without evidence, but i won't deny the very real probability that Fox and many other large corporations engage in said actions. However there is one thing that Pro has missed, that the above actions do not fit into the libertarian or the free market philosophy. Company B is breaking the law. Yes we currently have laws that make it illegal to do many of the things mentioned above, unfortunately we don't investigate or prosecute white collar crime with the same amount of energy as we do blue collar crime. That is not a failure of the free market. It is a failure of (or success depending on your point of view) of corporatism. Republicans/conservatives on the whole do not support the free market. They support a form of corporatism and call it a free market. Libertarians, in general, do not wish to see a removal of the state. Rather we wish to see it shrunk down to as small a size as possible, while still having the power to enforce laws. Now to be fair there is a group of libertarians called Anarcho-capitalist ( you can read about them here. http://en.wikipedia.org...) that believe we do not need a government at all. However to place all libertarians in that camp is the same as calling all democrats communists. As Thomas Jefferson said, a government is a "necessary evil." That is what Pro has failed to realize. We do need a government to make and enforce laws, but those laws should be as minimized as possible to allow for as much freedom as possible. In Pro's latest scenario Company B has used illegal or unethical tactics to win. This is not acceptable. Company B should be punished. That is how libertarians deal with people who wish to harm others. We get together as individuals and vote on laws that are intended to provide protection or compensation from being harmed by other individuals.
The Islamic God exists.

"What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that "this is a pen", for the opposite person to say, "it is not a pen", he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say "there is no God", he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods. If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam. Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.
It is very rude to refer to Autism as a mental disorder.

As Pro takes full BoP, I will show that it is NOT very rude to refer to autism as a mental disorder. RESOLUTION: It is very rude to refer to Autism as a mental disorder. I. Rudeness is subjectiveRudeness has varying effects based on the people you come into contact with. For example, some might take great offense at people refering to autism as a mental disorder. However, some (like myself) do not. Refer to the next point for why. Continuing on, this is why the resoultion is negated, with this point alone. As you see, the resoultion is "It is very rude to refer to Autism as a mental disorder. " By this resolution, this means that Pro is trying to prove that it is always considered rude. However, it isn't. People have varying opinions and ideas. As such, they have different ideas as to what is rude or not. As such, as long as one person believes that referring to autism as a mental disorder is not rude, the BoP has not been fulfilled by Pro. If Pro stated "It CAN BE very rude to refer to Autism as a mental disorder", he would be able to explain why. However, due to his wording, he implies that no matter in what context it is used, or whoever says it, it is rude, which is untrue, and impossible to prove true. II. Autism is defined as a "mental condition"Dictionary definition of autism:"a mental condition, present from early childhood, characterized by difficulty in communicating and forming relationships with other people and in using language and abstract concepts. " [1]Another citation states (first result when searching "what is autism" on Google) [2]"Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and autism are both general terms for a group of complex disorders of brain development. "It's pointless to call something something that it isn't. For example, it's pointless for me to call an apple a banana, even though it's an apple. Simply calling it something different doesn't change what it is. It's not rudeness to refer to autism as such; it's simply calling it what it is. Some may take it as rude, however, not all might. And as long as at least one person in the world (which is at least myself) doesn't believe refering to autism as a mental disorder is "rude", then the resolution is not affirmed, and thus I win this debate. As such I have made my two arguments clear. Why they are short, they negate the resolution. It's simply impossible to refute point 1. Thank you for the debate. As a side note: No, I do not like the misuse of the word autism, and believe that people should treat it more seriously, as insults such as "lol thus guy's got autism" for saying something/being something are completely idiotic. Then again, this is just my opinion, and some would not find this bad. Sources:[1] . http://tinyurl.com...[2] . http://www.autismspeaks.org...
It is very rude to refer to Autism as a mental disorder.

Hinduism is not a mental disorder, Islam is not a mental disorder, Christianity is not a mental disorder, even Scientology is not allowed to be referred to as a mental disorder. Yet Autism and all its sub-sects are demonized by societies across the world as if they are something to be fixed, as if it is an issue to be solved. I find this very rude and outrageous to do. You are saying that having an imaginary friend who guards you in any situation that you ask for assistance is not lunacy to the point of genuine insanity and emergency disorder of the brain and yet you tell people who happen to rely too heavily on logic and struggle to pick up on emotions and social cues sick in the head? Adherents of Autism refer to themselves as geniuses but most of the world refers to them as Autistic. The Autistics are very rigid in their routine, have varying obsessions across their religion as it is a very diverse one and one Autistic can never be assumed to share the same outlook as another one. What the Autistics do have in common though, is a shared loathing of socializing and small talk and an avid love for the strange and other-worldly. Much like Buddhists who make the vow of non-silence many Autistics have made the vow in the womb of their mother and never utter a word in their life. Other Autistics struggle with the notion of tying their own shoelaces or making out with an attractive member of their preferred gender, these are commonly seen as a sins amongst the majority of their following. However, it is taking it to awhoel new level of 'out of order' when you say that to be an adherent of Autism is to have a mental disorder. Dr. Asperger is one of their many prophets and is the founder of the sub-sect Asperger's Syndrome who choose not to make the vow of silence in the womb but sometimes do so in sexually tense situations because their heart is racing too fast for their brain to cope. Asperger's followers share the common fundamentals of Austism, such as compulsive obsessiveness and unsympathetic verbal abuse on others while never accepting that the self should then also take the verbal abuse back at them. Crying, whining and screaming are common practices among adherents as means of soothing the mind. Silent meditation should only be done when one is carrying out their obsessively preferred activity, such as taking photos of shoes or masturbating to furry porn. I support the right of Autism, and its adherent to escape this social stigma of being mentally ill and 'fixable' and instead to be accepted as part of the religious community, as opposed to the psychological one in which they have taken refuge.
On Balance, Economic Globalization is Beneficial

This is currently the second tournament that I have participated in, so hopefully it should prove interesting and enjoyable. I also would like to thank my opponent, Warren42, for accepting this debate topic, and would like to wish him luck for this debate, and the remainder of the tournament, should he proceed onward. The resolution of this debate is - "On Balance, Economic Globalization is Beneficial". Definitions:Globalization: Globalisation refers to the integration of markets in the global economy, leading to the increased interconnectedness of national economies. [1] Economic globalization is the increasing economic integration and interdependence of national, regional, and local economies across the world through an intensification of cross-border movement of goods, services, technologies and capital. [2]Rules: 1. No forfeits.2. No semantics.3. No kritiks.4. BOP is shared.5. All citations or footnotes must be included in the debate. 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives the right to add resolution affecting definitions of their own.7. Violation of these rules should be taken into account by the voter. Structure: R1: Con Opens. R2: Pro Opens, Con rebuts. R3: Pro Rebuts, Con DefendsR4: Pro Defends, Con waives. Sources:[1]. http://www.economicsonline.co.uk...[2]https://en.wikipedia.org...
Adam Is not God.

1. 'Adam sinned or paid the price for Eve, because in her womb was Noah, Abraham, David and the 12 tribes and Christ Himself=Adam's way to return virgin born.' How can a man who sinned himself pay the price for another sinner? For Christ is sinless! You point out 1Ti 2: 13-14 to prove your point. Notice that the previous verses talks about the submission of woman: 11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 1 Timothy 2: 11-12 2. Adam did not get the breath of God.Adam got the breath of life. You point out that God created man in his own Image. What does it mean? We are made to look like god. But we are not god. Now of course Adam was immortal but because he ate that fruit, he was kicked out. 3. If we take a look at your verses, It does not mention Adam. Now if Adam was that important, he would be mentioned by the early church fathers and the Popes and the Preachers and even Martin Luther.
Adam Is not God.

Adam: 1. 'So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.' Genesis 1:27 Notice the word ' mankind'. It does not say ' Gods'. It just says ' mankind'. 2. 'The bible has 300+ prophecies leading to the virgin birth of Christ, being born of the seed of Adam fulfilling being the Root of David who Prevailed.' Notice that any mention of Adam is virtually non existent after Genesis 5:3. Of course the bible has a bunch of these prophecies. But do they ever mention the name Adam? You see, Adam never spoke about theology. He just had sex with Eve and died. 3. Eve: Around the time Of Christ, the Torah already contained many prophecies saying that a VIRGIN will give birth to emmanuel. Notice the word Virgin. Did you know that Eve became a non virgin? As stated by Genesis 4:4: 'Adam[a] made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.[b] She said, "With the help of the Lord I have brought forth[c] a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.' According to http://www.behindthename.com..., Eve comes from the Hebrew name chawah which means,' to breathe.' Likewise Israel means "God contended". Eve was called by adam 'the mother of all living'. 4. Adam sinned. The very nature of christ is being tempted to sin but not to sin. If you want everyone in the world to listen to you and then sin, People might think you are a hypocrite. 5. Why did the early church fathers not support this doctrine? If you take a look at the nicene creed, there is no mention of Adam.
Lying is wrong, Straw Men are for Farms.

(TOPIC #1: LYING IS WRONG) I expect my opponent in this debate to substantiate that (LYING) is the (RIGHT) thing to do IN a DEBATE. I will explain the Opposite. (TOPIC #2: STRAW MEN ARE FOR FARMS) I would also like Con to show that Straw Men don't belong on farms, but can alternate between a FARM and THEIR comments with ease, and also hold an important place there. (MY ARGUMENT) My opponent lied his butt off in the last debate i had with him. > >>> . http://www.debate.org... Since i didn't call my opponnent a liar during the rounds of that debate, But was called one myself, I have chosen the topic of this debate to be: (Lying is wrong, Straw Men are for Farms. ) ;)
Lying is wrong, Straw Men are for Farms.

My wife and I are enterained by the pathological lying that has occurred over the course of this debate. Since my structure and my grammar herein,(though i think what CON means is punctuation) is in question; a) "Pro has went from a self proclaimed atheist to christian apologetic" - (not only an ad hominem attack, with atrocious grammar, but also a downright lie without any correlating evidence.) I will attempt to the best of my ability, to respond within the confines of Con's structure. In reality (and this isn't debatable), Con insults my intelligence as well as any readers intelligence by making false claims, I will no longer address a liar. All of Con's statements will be between parantheses so i don't confuse my opponent. (CONTENTION 1: I did not lie) .......( b) "My opponent cannot have read his own source and be telling the truth!" - This is based on my opponent's source for monotheism, Wikipedia, which does in fact say that Hinduism admits several Gods.).......... I was mistaken on this point and didn't comprehend the reading appropriately, and unlike my opponent, I can admit when I am wrong, with out using a straw man argument to evade the point. Yes my source was not a strong backing for my point, but there are philosophies in early Hinduism that are monotheistic, as it clearly stated on wiki, which was the best source i could use, without photocopying the books I have read. So now that we've cleared that up To the Liar we go... (c) My source for Zachariah 13 not being about Zachariah 13 - Actually it's about the whole opening part of Zachariah) oh really? Pro stated in the prior debate; (My opponent claims Zechariah 13:3 disproves me. That refers to when the Lord opens up the fountain of Jerusalem. Not when the messiah comes. This is telling because this passage is FAMOUS for not being about the messiah's coming (http://www.iclnet.org......). Yet earlier in the debate i was accused of being ignorant to the Prophecies Larz did you say this? (2. Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy of a messiah accepted by Jews... actually, there is no prophecy for this in the Bible. This point also shows my opponent's ignorance of Psalms 69:4, Isaiah 53:1, Zechariah 13:7, Zechariah 12:10, Zechariah 11:12-13, Zechariah 11:4-6, Isaiah 53:12, Isaiah 53:5 and about a dozen other prophecies that the Jews had. Why is Zechariah 13 included in that? Now its FAMOUS for not being about the messiah, why the change of mind between rounds ? Thank you for the useless argument larz Now that I have wasted 60 seconds responding to a pathological liar who debates like a child I'll be on my way ;)
Jesus didn't change the sabbath to sunday

Seeing as we are using the Bible as our source here, I will commence my argument. First, I will attack my opponent's arguments.Jesus didn't change the sabbath in the bible.He actually worshiped on that say.Yes, Jesus did worship on that day. The Ten Commandments (http://amightywind.com...) specifically state to keep holy the Sabbath Day, and in that context in which Jesus and Moses expressed the Sabbath Day was the seventh day, Sunday. Seeing as Jesus and the Bible refer to the Sabbath as Sunday, Jesus did indeed change the Sabbath to Sunday. Also, because the Ten Commandments state to keep holy the Sabbath Day, worshiping on the Sabbath is permissible with the intent to 'keep holy' the Sabbath.There is no evidence to where the bible said to worship on Sunday.The Bible states to keep holy the Sabbath day. The Bible states the Sabbath day is now Sunday. Therefore, by worshiping on Sunday, the Sabbath day is kept holy. It does not say to remember the first day but the seventh-day.The seventh day of the week was ordained as the Sabbath at Creation by God's very own example (Genesis 2:2,3; Exodus 20:11). The nation of Israel was instructed to keep it and chided for not doing so- even before the Law was given on Mount Sinai (Exodus 16:23-30). The Fourth Commandment, which specifies the seventh day as the Sabbath, was so important that God chose to place it at the very heart of the Ten Commandments; it is intimately associated with nine other moral precepts- which were given by the voice and finger of Yahweh Himself and which are appropriate for all humans throughout all generations (Exodus 20:8-11). (http://www.biblestudy.org...)It does state that the Sabbath is the seventh day, and it says to remember the Sabbath.It say clearly in the old testament to "REMEMBER" the sabbath day.god knew we would forget so that is why he put remember.The sabbath day is part of the 10 commandments not Jewish law.I do not understand the relevance of this argument and how it relates to the resolution.
Jesus didn't change the sabbath to sunday

Jesus didn't change the sabbath in the bible.He actually worshiped on that say.So did the disciples.There is no evidence to where the bible said to worship on Sunday.It does not say to remember the first day but the seventh-day.It say clearly in the old testament to "REMEMBER" the sabbath day.god knew we would forget so that is why he put remember.The sabbath day is part of the 10 commandments not Jewish law.
The God of Christianity does not exist due to logical fallacies.

::Definition of omniscience:: My opponent provides this definition: "Omniscience:The state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge." However, the more scholarly definition would be: "The ability to know anything logically possible." The same principle of logic applies to all my definitions. ::Arguments:: Omniscience: Can God know something he can't know ? Now "infinite knowledge" means that God can know absolutely everything. Meaning that he can know what he can't know - this is a logical contradiction. Under my opponents definition God does not obey the laws of logic hence yes he can, does it make any sense ? No but according to my opponents definition of omniscience, God does not have to make sense. According to my opponent God can be omniscient and not omniscient at the exact same time since God does not follow logic. Under my definition, there are no "unanswerable questions". Omnipotence: Same mistake. Under my opponents definition God can do what he can't do "The state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power.". He can be omnipotent without being omnipotent. There's no way of disproving a God that makes absolutely no sense by definition. Under my definition we have no problem: God can do anything logically possible. Hence, God cannot make a stone so big that he can't lift it. However, due to my definition God is still omnipotent.. Omnipresence: Same mistake (character limit). Due to the way my opponent defines the words, God can be contradictory e.g. God can be everywhere at once. However, if God can be everywhere then you can't argue that God can't be there because it makes no sense because under your definition we can have a God that doesn't follow logic. I think he does but under your definition he doesn't have to.
The God of Christianity does not exist due to logical fallacies.

I am of the affirmative that the God of Christianity does not exist due to logical fallacies regarding Omni-type statements pertaining to God. Welcome to my opponent, hope this will be good. ~~~~~~~~~ Definitions. ~~~~~~~~~ Omniscience The state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge. Bible verses - [1] [2] Omnipotence The state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power. Bible verses [3] [4] Omnipresence The state of being everywhere at once. Bible verses [5] [6] ~~~~~~~~~~ Arguments ~~~~~~~~~~ Below I will put forth my points to show that the three contentions mentioned above are of a reductio ad absurdum nature. Omniscience can not exist due to the statistical certainty that having infinite knowledge of all things would include an unanswerable question. Omnipotence can not exist due to the paradox of the immovable stone. Since people state this point may be stale so I will use Nigel Warburton's analogy of 'Could God create a breakfast so large even God could not eat it?'. This is a +1 game in which God fails in one of three ways God can make a rock heavy enough/breakfast large enough God can not lift the stone/ eat it - Fail God can lift any weight of rock/ eat any sized meal then God is not powerful enough to create a heavier rock/ larger breakfast - Fail It is an impasse - Fail, God is not all powerful. Omnipresence can not exist due to the inability to occupy all places. How could God differentiate from God's self? It translates to mean that God is all, ubiquitous matter that there is - God created God's self? Absolute Location is a fallacy [7] ~~~~~~~~~~ Final remarks ~~~~~~~~~~ I welcome my opponents aver