BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam has more evidence, makes more sense, and is more rational than Atheism.

1) The definition of atheism is non-debatable, I'm afraid, and though I've only been looking out for your best interest by urging you in each and every round to read up on what it means before you respond, it seems that will never happen. Atheism is not a mutually exclusive position to agnosticism, which deals with epistemology, not ontology. In the most simplest of terms, so that even a layman among laymen may understand, if you are not a theist (one who believes a deity exists), then you are an atheist.2) It appears the first shred of evidence in support of Islam my opponent graces us with is a version of a teleological argument, which aims to convince us the universe must have been fine-tuned by an intelligent creator. There are two main problems with this argument I'd like to address:(1) The term "fine-tuning" in the argument's premises is far too vague. Fine-tuned for what? Life? Human life? I certainly hope this is not what is meant, because then we can flatly reject the argument on the basis that the universe exhibits a profound lack of fine-tuning for life. Our planet Earth is like less than a grain of sand on all the world's beaches when compared to the whole of the cosmos and not even our tiny rock can support life on all of its surface year-round.(2) The argument concludes that the universe must be the result of some kind of design, but even if we graciously accept this, it could still not possibly hope to convince us of the specifics our opponent needs it to: that this "design" is, out of millions of concievable possibilities, the Islamic deity, Allah. Seeing as how my opponent is supposed to be arguing for Islam, and not deism, his argument inevitably falls short.3) My opponent says this, concerning the notion the land/sea ratio may just be coincidence: "islam mentions many many things. Such as the shape of the world, to the water cycle, to the fact that all living things are made of water. If you take the cumulative probability of all these things its like .001%."I believe there is sufficient reason to doubt my opponent's claim that the odds of all scientific facts being included in the Qu'ran is "like .001%". That is until he can reveal to us the equation he used to reach such a number. I must first reiterate that the people of the seventh century CE were not as ignorant as my opponent thinks they were, as I have proved in previous rounds. And it is certainly not inconcievable that a single text from that time period would be correct on several scientific facts, including the shape of the Earth, the water cycle, etc.
Islam has more evidence, makes more sense, and is more rational than Atheism.

1) Well if you have no proof going either way. Then being agnostic is more rational. But if there is more proof against a god existing then you should be an atheist. If there is more proof for a god existing you should be religious. To strongly disbelieve in a deity means you should have strong evidence against it, or your just making irrational decisions. 2) There is no proof there was nothing at all before the universes existence. And if there were something. It wouldnt have time, a beginning; or space, a form. Something that couldnt be known through scientific means in this 3d world. So there is no proof either way. But since the universe was created, why shouldnt there be no cause? Why did it randomly just create out of this infinitely small space(big bang). Dont get me wrong, Islam supports big bang theory but it needs a cause. Also quoted from Nur-Ab-Sal 1. The Universe"s fine-tuning is either due to necessity, chance, or design 2. The Universe"s fine-tuning is not due to necessity or chance 3. Therefore, the Universe"s fine-tuning is due to design Premise (1) is uncontroversial, unless my opponent brings forth an alternative theory. Premise (2) is substantiated because (a) reality and physics conforms around the fine-tuning being discussed, so physics could not have caused the fine-tuning, and (b) chance is an absurd hypothesis because of the infinitesimal scale the fundamentals of nature operate on. Thus the conclusion follows the Universe was designed. 3) Well star isnt. it never says in the quran everything possiblle will be mentioned. Its just that certain things come up. And I highly doubt all of these things are coincidences. Its practically impossible. Its literature is perfect. Also islam mentions many many things. Such as the shape of the world, to the water cycle, to the fact that all living things are made of water. If you take the cumulative probability of all these things its like .001%. Its quite rare, you could throw it off as a coincidence. But its much more likely to not be. This is a little hard now since i presumed Atheism also included the belief of all modern scientific theories. Really what im saying is. To believe that god doesnt exist, is a belief itself. It should have if not evidence, ideas completely supporting it, not contradicting proven science. If your dont have evidence for god its not rational to become an atheist, it would be more rational to be an agnostic on that viewpoint.
Islam has more evidence, makes more sense, and is more rational than Atheism.

1) Debating the definition of atheism is something I'd rather not do, but it seems my opponent still doesn't quite understand it, so I will clarify again: an atheist is, most inclusively, one who does not believe a deity exists. This does not mean an atheist is someone who believes deities do not exist.You say, FogFail, that if we don't believe in deities for no reason, then we are illogical, but that's just absurd. No one believes anything without good reason. That is the default concerning belief in anything at all: disbelief, until convinced otherwise. The reason we don't believe is that there is no reason to believe. If you are still confused, please refer to the source I provided in the last round.2/3) My opponent's evidence for the existence of Allah seems simple now: the universe had a beginning, everything that had a beginning must have had a cause, so the universe must have had a cause, and that cause must have been a deity, and that deity must have been Allah.Please note that my opponent clearly says "It is impossible to prove this" as a disclaimer that his entire theory is not actually evidence, but mere speculation. He's right: it's impossible to prove the universe needed to have a cause of its existence. He says, though, that it's at least more likely that it did have a cause than didn't, but to this I wholeheartedly disagree.Nothing at all existed before the universe's beginning, at least as far we know. It's not like there was just a big, black emptiness for a long time and then all of a sudden, the universe popped into existence. No, there was nothing at all before the universe. To say the universe had a cause of its beginning would be to say that something did, in fact, exist before the universe. To prove that would be quite difficult indeed. "Impossible" was the right word, FogFail.4) Seeing as how my opponent completely ignored the question, I'd wager the word "star" was not mentioned billions of more times than the word "Earth". My opponent also did not respond to the possibility that the "land"/"sea" ratio is nothing more than a convenient coincidence. Extend all arguments regarding these.My opponent says "Atheism has also not been proven". If he understood the definition of "atheism", he would understand how insane that sentence sounds. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. It does not need proof, because it does not make any positive claims. Islam, on the other hand, does. It claims, among other things, that Allah exists. But our opponent has yet to grace us with even a shred of evidence for this deity's existence.It is irrational to believe in things that do not have supporting evidence. And seeing as how Islam fits that description, it is irrational to be a Muslim.
Islam has more evidence, makes more sense, and is more rational than Atheism.

1) Well if atheists just dont believe in deities without any reason. Then atheism is the most irrational belief of all. If you are arguing for atheism you should have some sort of backing to your ideas. If an atheist doesnt believe in evolution, then he is agnostic. If he believes the universe wasnt created by a deity, but doesnt know who created it either. Hes agnostic. Im not trying to argue with you on what Atheism is. I just wanted to debate against common science, but i couldnt do that since Islam supports much of it. So i had to use Atheism in my resolution. 2) Well it has more evidence than atheism. Those 3 things i told you are random speculations that cannot be answered. In Islam there is nothing that is improbable. Even if they sound like speculations. Also Islam has a substantial amount of proof for a religion based on faith. If God gave you clear cut evidence you would just have faith out of fear not love. That also contradicts with free will since you wont have a choice if extraordinary evidence is presented to you. Yet there is a substantial amount. The Quran is a perfect book. There is a verse that says, "If you think this is written by a man, surely you will be able to create something like it". The quran is 6000 verses of perfect poetry, talking about everything in life. 3) Gods evidence is the basic idea that something has to create the universe. If the universe had a beginning then it must have a cause of its beginning. Something cannot come from nothing. It is impossible to prove this. If time and space were created, there has to be something not existing in time or space to create it. Its not an easily proven fact, but its more logical than the universe popping out of no where. Or even the M-Theory since that isnt even half complete. Clay thing is metaphorical. Its referring to how humans were perfectly molded like clay and how we are "earthly". Many other verses speak of us being made differently, like with embryo. Quran explains embryology. And like saying we are from sperm etc. And us evolving from apes isnt proven, so its not a scientific fact. Just a theory. The word is yowm i think in arabic. It means both day and period in arabic. Its not a literal day OBVIOUSLY. Many Islamic scholars beleive it refers to "heavenly" days, much longer than earthly days. Which is not 24 hours since that is impossible. 4) Its not that ratio to the book. There are 13 times where land comes up and 32 times where sea comes up. Out of 45( the sum) 13 is 28.888%. I remember seeing a source quoting the exact verse numbers, i need to find that but I will try to find it by the end of the debate. http://alislaah4.tripod.com... Here are the other word things. You said " Islam has yet to be proven to be true " Islam is going to be proven to be true until maybe The Day of Judgement. Also that doesnt make it illogical. Atheism has also not been proven. There has to be proof against the idea of a deity as well. There is not proof on either end. Im arguing, despite the lack of clear cut proof. Islam is much more logical.
Islam has more evidence, makes more sense, and is more rational than Atheism.

Basically try to convince that Atheism has more proof or backing than Islam. Please if your arguing, argue over islam the religion, NOT the followers. Dont bring up terrorism or anything else stupid. Islam makes way more sense than Atheism. It has more evidence towards it. Atheism is completely irrational. There are 3 things atheists can NEVER prove without using theories or speculation. How did the universe come to exist, how did life form on earth spontaneously, and how did this life evolve into Humans that have such advanced ingenuity and morale. Islam supports big bang but says God was a catalyst. Islam supports evolution up to the fact that humans came from primates because humans are OBVIOUSLY different. Islam also is scientifically 100% accurate. Mecca is the golden ratio of the world. Many things in the quran are scientifically accurate and there thigns people at the time had no clue of. Such as the shape of the world, the shape of embryos, big bang, estuaries, reflected moonlight, water cycle, ripples. NO ONE at the time of its revalation had these ideas and the quran had them through a single prophet. There is no way Muhammed came up with this it has to be a revelation from god. Also the Quran itself is a proof. How can a book have not a single letter changed, not a single contradiction within itself or with science. Its truly a miracle. The idea of atheism is flawed and has no backing.
The omniscience of God has been poorly defined by the Christian community.

My opponent has made little to no attempt to refute the scriptures I presented that show God is omniscient. "Yes the character of God is being questioned by this argument because God is supposedly incapable of doing wrong and having prior knowledge of something catastrophic and doing nothing I think we can all agree would be immoral and at the very least cowardly. Are these things that we attribute to God? Of course not. My opponent stated that maybe God has a morally justifiable reason to allow evil, that is a contradiction of the incapable wrong doing of God. My opponent also brought up the topic of free will, another reason the all knowing of God is unlikely because free will and all knowing cannot go hand in hand. This echo's back to the argument in the first round referencing the theory of pre-destination." Lots to address in here. Alvin Plantiga has said, "It is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil." [1] Atheist philosipher William Rowe has also said, "Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim." [2] We also must distinguish between logically-possible worlds and feasible worlds for God to create. While a sin-free human world is logically/theoretically possible, it may not be feasible for God to create it since it is up to humans to respond to God's grace and love. If God has a morally justifiable reason for permitting the evils that he does, then this rebuts the logical problem of evil. My opponent also said that free will and omniscience cannot go hand in hand. Of course they can. God could be omniscient in knowing what humans will freely choose. "Secondly my opponent said that I have not held the burden of proof. However, both through scriptural and logical examples I have proved that while the church says that God is omniscient this is highly unlikely if not impossible due to Gods inability to do wrong, and the incompatibility of free will and Gods incapability to do wrong." First off, there is no scripture that points to God not being omniscient. Or if there is, my opponent has not presented it. I also showed that free will is not incompatible with omniscience. In this debate I have showed that scripture is in full support of Gods omniscience, that Gods omniscience and evil are not incompatible, and that Gods omniscience and free will are not incompatible as those were the three arguments my opponent tried to bring up. Thank you to my opponent and the readers and voters. [1] Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 31 [2] William L. Rowe, "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,"American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (October 1979)
The omniscience of God has been poorly defined by the Christian community.

This is the final round calling for final arguments, I will address my opponents two main arguments first that I am only addressing the character of God and second that I have not held the burden of proof that God is not omniscient. Firstly that I am only addressing the character of God. Yes the character of God is being questioned by this argument because God is supposedly incapable of doing wrong and having prior knowledge of something catastrophic and doing nothing I think we can all agree would be immoral and at the very least cowardly. Are these things that we attribute to God? Of course not. My opponent stated that maybe God has a morally justifiable reason to allow evil, that is a contradiction of the incapable wrong doing of God. My opponent also brought up the topic of free will, another reason the all knowing of God is unlikely because free will and all knowing cannot go hand in hand. This echo's back to the argument in the first round referencing the theory of pre-destination. Secondly my opponent said that I have not held the burden of proof. However, both through scriptural and logical examples I have proved that while the church says that God is omniscient this is highly unlikely if not impossible due to Gods inability to do wrong, and the incompatibility of free will and Gods incapability to do wrong. This is my final argument and the beginning of the end of this debate, please read carefully and look not just at the quantity of evidence and arguments but also the quality.
The omniscience of God has been poorly defined by the Christian community.

I like that my opponent used Psalm 147:5 as one of his sources because this defines God as having all understanding. Comprehension is quite different than knowledge. I can comprehend what a person is doing or speaking about even if I have no previous knowledge. My opponent compared God to a infallible barometer simply reading the pressure, but to say that God has all knowledge he would need to do more than just read the pressure in the moment he would have to have knowledge of even my life from the very beginning of time. As to my opponents argument that just because God knows evil will happen does not mean he is the cause of the evil is true, BUT that being said, if I had knowledge of a bomb being planted in a crowded building I would have a moral obligation to try and stop it. If God has knowledge of evil and does nothing to stop it that reiterates my point that he is by definition then a sociopath taking pleasure in the pain of the beings he has created. Looking to the New Testament we see the stoning of a young man (Stephen, Acts 7) for his faith in Christ as the messiah and son of God. If God had knowledge of this stoning would he not have saved this young man to preach the gospel? Now you may say that witnessing his death is what turned Saul to Paul later on but I would contest that it made him even more determined to wipe out the Christians until Jesus himself blinded and confronted Saul. In short my argument for this round is that knowledge does not equal understanding (comprehension).
The omniscience of God has been poorly defined by the Christian community.

Resolved: God is not omniscient as the Christian church claims. Defined: GOD: The Judeo-Christian God OMNISCIENT: All knowing, having all knowledge CHRISTIAN CHURCH: Any church that worships the Judeo-Christian God Rules: The argument itself is lent towards the sole use of the Christian bible as evidence, though for the purpose of argument sources from the church fathers may also be used. This debate shall cover 3 rounds, round 1 acceptance and opening arguments, round 2 rebuttal, and round 3 closing arguments. (*Note* I am a Christian but I do not believe in the omniscience of God as I was taught in Sunday School.) May the best debater win ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Opening Arguments: The Christian church claims that their God is all knowing (omniscient) and that as such he knows where your life is going. To claim that God is all knowing is to claim that A. He knowingly created Adam and Eve to fall to the wiles of the serpent and be kicked out of his perfect garden of Eden (Genesis 3). B. He knows whether we are going to heaven or hell, which leads to the argument of predestination meaning it doesn't matter how good or bad we are it will not change the destination (Romans 8). C. That God knew of the pain Joseph, Job, and any individual who has suffered and done nothing to change it making him a sociopath (Genesis 37, & the book of Job). All of these arguments point away from the loving, involved, caring God to a sociopathic God who delights in the suffering of the beings he created. Argument B. also gives justification for all sorts of immoral behavior because it in theory will not effect the after-life. If predestination is true just think of all the people who might be in heaven, Hitler, Pol Pot, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc.
Nazis improved the German economy during WWII

Arguements:1st Arguement: Pre World War 2 economyAfter WW1 the Germans had to sign the Treaty of Versailles. This treaty severly undercutted the German military and their economy. The German GDP Growth slowed to 150 mil marks from 350 mil marks [1]. Not only this but the German unemployment rates exploded to 30 percent from 5 percent pre WW1 [2]. A loaf of bread went from costing 1 mark in 1918 to 200,000,000,000 marks in 1923 [3]. 2nd Arguement: The Economy after the rise of HitlerAfter Hilter rose to power the Gross national Income finally rose above the negative mark [4]. The unemployment rate dropped to under 5 percent which was less than pre WW1! [5]. Hitler also helped create massive highway systems, introduced the automobile and rebuilt the German Army which all resulted in more jobs which created more jobs Back to my opponent! Sources:[1] . http://www.theholocaustexplained.org...[2] . http://www.theholocaustexplained.org...[3] . http://www.theholocaustexplained.org...[4] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . http://www.j-bradford-delong.net...
Nazis improved the German economy during WWII

This is my first debate so please dont noob snipe.Resolution:Nazis improved the German economy during WWIIRules:[1] No K's[2] First round acceptance only[3] Forfeit is NOT automatic loss[4] Moral arguements are null and voidDefinitions:Nazis:Party of Hitler that ruled Germany pre and during WWIIEconomy:The wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services.Interested to debate!
Greatest Grunge Band of the 90s

This is a picture of Eddie Vedder's house This is what Kurt Cobain sees everyday Because he's DEAD. Eddie Vedder recently hung out with President Obama in Hawaii.Kurt Cobain doesn't hang out with anybody, because he's DEAD. Eddie Vedder is worth $80 million http://www.bornrich.com...;Kurt Cobain was cremated and his ashes were supposedly spread over a creek in Washington. He's worth $0 because he's DEAD.Eddie Vedder and his Pearl Jam bandmates still get to enjoy all the success they've had over the years. Courtney Love probably motivated Kurt to blow his brains out, now she gets to enjoy all the money Kurt would have made, and she is just a horrible human being. Instead of enjoying success, Kurt is taking a dirt nap.Enjoying your big house, hanging out with the POTUS, being worth millions of dollars, that is what success is.Being worm food is not what I call being "successful"
God as explained by all religions does not exist.

I hope that con gets cured fast and is good enough to put a rebuttal and a conclusion in 1 round (I dont mind rebuttal in last round)Here I conclude my arguments in short statements-1.Gods as explained by major religions of the world are self conradictory and hence cannot exist.2.Religions which are now extinct or minor is because the god explained by them are unsatisfactory,had fallacies and hence were not accepted by people.