BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: God Exists.

This is my first debate over God existing. Rules1st Round is acceptance and definitions2nd Round is contentions only, no rebuttles.3rd Round is Rebuttles.4th round is rebuttles and conclusions. No profanitiesWikipeadia is not an acceptable SourceBurden of Proof shall be shared. No SemanticsGod- the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc. , and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Exists- to have actual being : to be real (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Solutions to Overpopulation

Let us discuss some potential solutions to the problem of overpopulation. Here are the rules: You have 4 rounds, 3 days to prepare a counter-argument, and a maximum of 9000 characters per round. For arguments sake we will be focusing on African Americans. No black people are allowed to accept due to being Biasedly black. No Jews allowed to accept due to having something like this already happen to them. Due to the nature of this debate, racism is permitted. Please add as much detail as possible.
Should sport become comulsory

PRO says that his argument was intended for a different debate and asks that I re-submit my case. But this isn't at all fair to me. He. not I. has made a mistake, and he's asking for me to post my case before he posts his whn we both have an equal burden. This simply is not fair in the east bit, especially when he forfeited Round 2. And that he claims he wants me to "resubmit" my case sounds almost robotic, because I never submitted a constructive.All in all, I refuse to succumb to PRO"s highly deceptive game. He had every opportunity to post a case this round, as he did in Rounds 2 and 3, and this ploy to have me post first is simply unfair and disengenuous.
Should sport become comulsory

Compulsory - Yes this term does mean to enforce, however, the term "compulsory" in this argument is in relation to sport and no other, nor any regime, war, guns, delinquency or babies as you have acquired for examples within the structure in order to attempt to win your argument. In-fact it would have been better if you didn't associate historical regime with sport, sport is already on a decline due to "Increased work and study commitments". You have also associated this topic engaging destructive and primitive behavior in very large populations. The worlds largest participating sporting event has no more than 210,000 participants as of this date, and is held for no longer than one week, proceedings generally go to a charitable cause, the average number of participants in any given sporting event by all means is under one hundred and is not limited to solace participation. You as my opponent have created an ultimatum by re-defining the term compulsory in this argument. Is anything compulsory for a baby? Certainly though if sport was under totalitarian policy for infants, they would have an excellent and very consistent record being that crawling is a form of walking. Baby steps, give it a go for all the babies out there :). And if land tax is compulsory - a totalitarian policy, and one were in coma (Not alive), mentally incapable, or even out of action, I would find it hard to believe that feds are going to enforce a legal conviction in such case, so, support would be offered. Just like sport, athletes generally encourage each other by physical mentoring (pacing one another so to say). With all due respect to your bravery, there has been NO "instance" found in your premise. We can't make relationships compulsory, but sport is something which really can make a difference in one's life, when one is physically active, the effect helps improve one's self awareness, and that is a crucial element that allows one to be able to self mentor. So many factors could be the reason why people become no longer interested in sport, one should not lose their best self if their buddy moves town or breaks his leg. In an ideal world if governments were able to collaborate with compassion and resilience, they could do anything, including remove such misconception of corruptible behavior as you mentioned, because i believe it's at minimal, just because one government is corrupt, it doesn't make them all corrupt. And if such enforcements were to be made upon society, reduced burden of modern health systems would be the single most benefit. On an ending note for this round, I would like to share with you something which i personally have experienced after exceeding the age of 30 years, and i think it begins to most people who enter maturity, financial burdens require a more heuristic approach, the focus for family survival radically shifts and so does the paradigm for a precautionary approach and risk assessment. If sport were compulsory i think that society (Quality of Life) would be improved.
Should sport become comulsory

Topic: Should sport become compulsory. The topic is not about "What Pro has done wrong." On the contrary, my opponent has gone off the topic, thus I have no choice but to use my opponents argument to give a clear demonstration why sport should become compulsory. My opponent has failed to realise that the intended argument was not for this particular debate, and has failed to acknowledge that the opponents posted argument was in relation to another, further more it's quite obvious that this was an error, as the incorrectly posted argument had absolutely no relation to the opponents argument. - Physical and active play develops social skills, intellectual capacities, concepts and with a significant increase of awareness. The Con, (my opponent), has with placed an argument with an emphasis on fairness. My opponent failed to empathise for the pro who's membership at debate.org was less than 1 hour old from the posted debate and is clearly shown on the members profile, yet has pursued brute force attack directly on the opponent, when the posted argument was merely in the nature of human error. The benefits of sport lead to Increased ability to deal with stress, Greater social contact and interaction. My opponent has failed to demonstrate the ability to deal with stress, as there has been spilt milk, yet my opponent is still crying when the real world objectives/challenges with making sport to become compulsory have not yet been identified.
Evil proves God does not exist

Pro says "My opponent gave a definition of what God is, and I am simply arguing that he should behave according to that definition." Pro says "Arguing that God would allow evil because it is necessary for free will does not make sense based on Con's own definition of God" Pro objects to the free will defense by stating that free will is not justified. Pro then makes the claim that this claim is justified on MY definition of God. This is false, I never defined God as something that can't justify something at the expense of suffering, you did. Pros argument was....... 1. Evil exists. 2. If the God of Theism existed, he would not allow evil to exist. 3. Therefore, the God of Theism does not exist. There is a hidden premise in their I want to flesh out "It is impossible for God to have any reason to allow evil to exist" Pros argument fleshed out in more detail is.......... 1. Evil exists. 2. If the God of Theism existed, he would not allow evil to exist. 2b It is impossible for God to have any reason to allow evil to exist 3. Therefore, the God of Theism does not exist. Premise 2b and therefore premise 2 has not be proven. I refuted Pros claims about my definition some how not allowing God a reason for allowing evil. In the absence of any proof that God allowing evil to exist is a logically impossible, it must be conceded that God allowing evil to exist is possible, thus the claim that "evil proves God does not exist as false" I look forward to pros reply.
Evil proves God does not exist

Thanks to my opponent for his quick reply. I think all of his objections to my argument can easily be answered. I do not believe that I am wrong in assuming that God has the desire to prevent evil from occurring. A morally good being should, by definition, desire to prevent evil. If he chooses to prioritize some other goal over the prevention of evil, then he is not morally good. Answer to my Opponent's First Counterargument: My opponent has contended that the existence of evil is necessary for the existence of free will. However, I see no reason why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God has any need for the existence of free will. If he desires the well being of conscious beings (and if he is morally good, he does) why should he allow them to make choices that compromise this interest? If God is all powerful, all knowing, and has our best interests in mind, then why should he allow anyone to go against His way, as my opponent puts it? There is no justification for this. There is no reason why the God described by my opponent in Round 1 should see free will as an end unto itself. If I may directly answer my opponent's question of the two worlds: God would unequivocally choose World 1 because he does not wish for evil to exist. Why is creating the capacity for evil at all in his interest if he is morally good? It is counterintuitive to create a world with the potential for evil if you do not desire for evil to exist. I suspect that an omniscient God would be a little more rational than that. There is indeed no reason whatsoever why God would choose to create World 2, yet World 2 is clearly the one we live in. If Con believes that there is such a reason, he should propose it. Answer to My Opponent's Second Counterargument: I am not sure whether my opponent is disputing my definition of evil or simply my reason for positing it. Unless he would like to offer an alternative definition, I see no reason why to go into a lengthy philosophical exposition that no one will want to read. If excessive and unnecessary suffering is not evil then I do not understand what evil is. Since we have both agreed that evil exists, my opponent must pose his own definition of evil if he does not accept mine. Indeed, it seems irrelevant what the definition of evil is because we are certain that it exists and we are only discussing whether or not God would allow it. Simply pointing out that my claims make some assumptions does not constitute an argument unless there is some suggestion of why those assumptions are wrong or some counterexamples based on better assumptions is provided. Conclusion: A morally perfect being does not prioritize any other interests over the well being of conscious beings. To do so would be directly contradictory to the definition of morality. Arguing that God would allow evil because it is necessary for free will does not make sense based on Con's own definition of God. There is nothing in it that suggests that free will is important to Him, so to suggest this reason seems rather random. Therefore, there is still no reason to assume that God would allow for evil to exist, and the argument from evil succeeds.
Evil proves God does not exist

"My justification of the second point is based off my opponent's definition of God. God is morally good, all powerful, and all knowing. He therefore is aware of every instance of evil, has the power the stop it, and has the desire to stop it. In that case, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any evil or suffering in the world" My opponent ASSUMES that God has the desire to stop evil. I question this assumption. If it is possible for God to have a reason/s for allowing evils existence, then this argument is shown false. This raises the question, is there any reason that evil could exist ? I shall give some possible justifications for Gods allowing evil. Justification 1) A world where evil exists is necessary for the exercise of free will In a world where no evil exists, due to Gods enforcement, it would be argued that Gods way is done, cause its the ONLY way. The allowance of evil allows an alternative choice to Gods way, and thus this accusation of Gods way being done out of non choice can not be made against God. To reinforce my point lets look at 2 worlds. .. .. World 1) No capacity to do evil is given, thus evil does not exist World 2) Capacity to do evil is given, thus evil exists Pro claim is that God has no reason what so ever to create/allow world 2 over world 1. I claim that free will is a reason for world 2. If there is even 1 possible reason for God allowing evil, this shows Pro claims of "In that case, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any evil or suffering in the world. " false, and thus the claim that evil proves that God does not exist as false. Unto my 2nd argument. .. .. .. .. Pro says "For the purpose of this debate, I will define evil as an act or situation that causes the excessive and unnecessary suffering of conscious beings" Pro regards unnecessary suffering as evil. But no what basis does he make this claim ? Is unnecessary suffering evil just because you don't like it, or is their an independent moral standard that says unnecessary suffering is evil ? I look forward to Pro reply.
Evil proves God does not exist

The argument that he has presented is known as the problem of evil, one of the most widely used arguments against the existence of the God of Theism. It is my goal to demonstrate in this debate that based on the problem of evil, we should reasonably conclude that the God of Theism does not exist. I think my opponent's proposed resolution, "Evil proves God does not exist" is a bit of an oversimplification when taken at face value, but I think that we all understand what is meant. Grape's Presentation of the Problem of Evil: 1. Evil exists. 2. If the God of Theism existed, he would not allow evil to exist. 3. Therefore, the God of Theism does not exist. For the purpose of this debate, I will define evil as an act or situation that causes the excessive and unnecessary suffering of conscious beings. My opponent has claimed not to dispute the existence of evil, and the examples of its existence are incredibly numerous in any case. My justification of the second point is based off my opponent's definition of God. God is morally good, all powerful, and all knowing. He therefore is aware of every instance of evil, has the power the stop it, and has the desire to stop it. In that case, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any evil or suffering in the world. I think this reasoning is sufficient to disprove the first claim of my opponent's argument "God existing and evil existing [sic] has not been shown to be mutually exclusive. " The existence of God and the existence of evil are mutually exclusive. Conclusion: I am going to end my argument here for now because I am not sure how to proceed. I have given an adequate reason to accept the first premise of my argument and my opponent has already conceded the second premise, so my conclusion stands. Unfortunately I have no sources now because I have said virtually nothing worthy of citation. Also, I think it would have been better to start this debate as Con because I am the one trying to uphold the resolution. I would prefer not to confuse voters.
Evil proves God does not exist

My opponent will argue that "Evil proves God does not exist" I will be arguing that the existence of evil does not prove Gods non existence. Definition of God - Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover Opening Statement.......... The existence of evil has been used as a "proof" against Gods' non existence for a long time, by arguing the impossibility of God existing and evil existing. This argument can be summarized as........... 1) Evil can only exist if God does not exist 2) Evil does exist 3) Therefore God does not exist But why accept the mutual exclusivity of the first premise ? In the absence of proving this mutually exclusivity, at the very least God existing and evil existing is shown to be possible. My counter argument for now is...... 1) God existing and evil existing has not be shown to be mutually exclusive. 2) Therefore its possible that God exists even if evil exists. 3) Therefore the claim that "Evil proves Gods' non existence" is false. Seeing my opponent is the one arguing for Gods non existence based on evil existing I will leave it to them to make this argument in the affirmative.
The Holy Bible Contradicts Itself.

Rules:1. No semantics2. No trolling3. No profanity4. No vulgarityStructure: 1. Acceptance/Definitions2. Opening Statement3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals 5. Closing Arguments/ConclusionDefinitions- The Holy Bible- canonical collection of sacred texts in Judaism or Christianity.contradicts- to assert the contrary of.contradiction- phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something.If anyone violates the rules, they will lose the debate.
The Bible is a reliable historical document.

This is not a debate for the existence of God, the identity of Christ, or the inspiration of scripture. This is the question of are the Biblical scriptures reliable documents. Is what was originally written down what we posses now? Has it been changed? Can we trust the Bible? Does it contradict history? That is how we must interpret the resolution. So the first round is just to accept the debate, and then we'll proceed with the actual debate. Good luck and God bless whoever my opponent is going to be.I stated this in the first round of this debate. My opponent has ignored all of my arguments and refused to debate me because he insists upon the impossibility of the supernatural. My opponent has no concept of the supernatural of any desire to know what the supernatural aspects of the universe encompasses. Because my opponent refused to debate the resolution, or argue against my contention or any other argument, Pro should easily win this debate. I hate to win on topicality, but this is how we must have interpreted the resolution, and even though my opponent accepted the debate, he chose not to do so.My opponent also should not bring up any new arguments in the next round or else he will be forfeiting the round due to abuse. Because of course I can't debate those arguments because I don't have another round. Thank youVote Pro due to topicality
The Bible is a reliable historical document.

The premise is whether the Bible a reliable historical document. How do I argue about the Bible without God? My opponent is not staying on topic what so ever. All of his points are made on the stance that the supernatural is impossible. The super natural things are things outside of the metaphysical world that cannot necessarily be seen. I stated in the beginning that this is not about the supernatural. I have not made any arguments like “God has protected the Bible from being corrupted” or “it is impossible for the Bible to be corrupted because it is holy”. Therefore my opponent shouldn’t make non-topical claims by saying “the supernatural doesn’t exist so this is impossible”. He could have presented some evidence that historically contradicted the Bible, or evidence that the Bible has been altered in some manner. However, he has not presented anything, so we must assume there is no evidence that contradicts the Bible. Even history textbooks need to pick and choose what is included, and similarly the Bible is presented from a certain viewpoint. "Reliable" historical accounts generally mesh several viewpoints and examine the issue from multiple angles rather than one view framed in a black and white form. The fact that there are several viewpoints only confirms its validity. The Bible is really a collection of several eyewitness’s testimonies. This only confirms its reliability in the sense that no one removed or added parts of the testimonies to make the story easier to follow. Scientific evidence? That humans appeared under a week after Earth's creation? Well actually my opponent takes the first chapter of Genesis out of context. If you look at the root word in Hebrew for the word day, it has four meanings: a 24 hour day, all of the daylight hours, part of the daylight hours, and finally a long but finite piece of time. Now if you read the chapter you will see that each day begins and ends, however not the seventh day in which God rests does not end. This would lead us to believe that we are now in the seventh “day” so to speak. It’s merely a misinterpretation of the original language, and I can assure you that the Bible is parallel to the 4 billion year old Earth model. My evidence for this came in the video. . http://www.youtube.com... "My opponent makes no attack against my contention that the Bible is the most reliable ancient text in the world. " My opponent gives us no reason to doubt the historical accuracy of the Bible, he has been very non-topical, taken verses out of context, and does not provide any evidence that the Bible has been altered. I have provided mass amounts of evidence that the Bible has not been altered, and so my claim stands the Bible is a reliable historical document. I have also presented evidence that confirms events in the Bible. For these reasons and more I urge a Pro vote. I look forward to my opponent’s response.
The Bible is a reliable historical document.

"The supernatural should not be a factor in this debate as I stated in my opening round. " The premise is whether the Bible a reliable historical document. How do I argue about the Bible without God? I think the issue of God's role in quite important in evaluating how reliable it is. In my view, the the vast number of physical impossibilities mentioned in the Bible make it a dubious historical guide due to those facts alone. Certainly, most of us would consider a textbook that made outlandish claims about talking animals or the Earth being created in 7 days or people being turned into salt as a shaky historical piece even if some parts may present a version of the truth. Even history textbooks need to pick and choose what is included, and similarly the Bible is presented from a certain viewpoint. "Reliable" historical accounts generally mesh several viewpoints and examine the issue from multiple angles rather than one view framed in a black and white form. "Yes, I most certainly do. And I do have evidence for why creationism is valid. " Scientific evidence? That humans appeared under a week after Earth's creation? "My opponent makes no attack against my contention that the Bible is the most reliable ancient text in the world. " This is not the premise. The premise is whether the Bible is a reliable historical document, period. Reliable historical documents tend to make claims that don't contradict our natural laws or claim the happening of physical impossibilities. A "reliable" historical document should not be based on pure faith as to whether a snake actually spoke, people were turned to salt, the sea split in two, or any number of other events which are considered impossibilities. If you want to even argue for these things you must include a divine element, which is a topic you're trying to avoid. Pro contends that there is no archaeological evidence that contradicts the Bible. I don't agree with this, but before we even go on this issue we must address the fundamental issues here. If you wanted to argue from an archaeological perspective you should have made that clear in the premise, but from the viewpoint of a non-believer there are much larger problems. If you're going to claim that "God did it" then you must have proof for the skeptics rather than gloss over the more far fetched parts and illegitimately place the burden of proof on me asking that I prove that such and such event is not true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.