BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The existence of information is evidence for a Creator.

Pro concedes this debate. Also Pro strawmans me, I said I am not at liberty to *provide arguments*. Since Pro has the burden here. However, Pro has left all my arguments unaddressed. Further he abandons his original argument, and now leans heavily on the unproven assertion that naturalism cannot generate information - ignoring that we already have processes that produce it (e.g. camera example). He also refuted himself when he says humans have created life, since this would be a generation of new information from materialistic processes, true that pre-existing information was present, but this alone refutes the notion that a non-material origin of information is required, since material origins of new information are already known. Furthermore, even if naturalism is false, that doesn't prove God, since there are millions of atheistic ontologies which do not require naturalism to be true (such as what I gave last round).
The existence of information is evidence for a Creator.

You said that you were not at liberty to debate this. then why did you accept the debate? Why did you not let someone else accept it? Once again, I declare a forfeit, since you missed the first round, and also accepted without the intention of debating me. But to answer one of your questions, when I mentioned information, I was referring to natural information, such as that contained in DNA. This is complex, specified information. It is a carrier of meaning. It is read and acted upon by the thousands of biological micromachines in the cell. This information could not have created itself through a naturalistic process. For example, scientists have recently created a synthetic lifeform. Sounds pretty amazing, right. But in order to accomplish this amazing feat, the scientists had to use existing life, not once. Not twice. But three times! Even with all of our knowledge and technology, we cannot create life without using life. This is proof that it could not happen by naturalistic processes.
The existence of information is evidence for a Creator.

I am not at liberty to make arguments in this debate since Pro carries the full BoP. Pro's personally belief that information cannot be produced by the material universe at best only proves that either information cannot be produced, or is produced non-materially. What has any of this got to do with God? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. 1. Assume Pro's Belief Even if we assume Pro's belief that the material cannot produce information, it doesn't follow the universe cannot since Pro hasn't shown that the universe is wholly material. Which given his undefined terms leaves open a plethora of options which do not require violating naturalism. Even if we assume materialism is false, there still is dualism/idealism/solipsism, etc etc. which are not material based and do not mandate or even evidence God. 2. Information Where is Pro's evidence that information cannot be produced by material origins? Each time I pull the trigger on my camera, new digital information is created on the memory card based on it's physical interactions with nature. Thus - information is created just fine physically. I suspect Pro has some abstract weird definition of "information" he is adhering to - which he should define if he does. 3. God How is God not material? Is it "not material" by definition? If he is "not material" by definition, then I posit a counter hypothesis called a "ChinaChuk" - which is a form of magic computer which is defined as being "not material". Thus - information is just as much evidence for this "ChinaChuk" as it is God. Obviously anyone could imagine a zillion random things which are "not material" and all would be equally evidenced by information. God just comes out of nowhere as an explanation - seems to be an argument from ignorance at it's core. Mm. I am hungry now - Chinese sounds good.
The existence of information is evidence for a Creator.

Information. What is it? It has it's own existence, independent of matter and energy. It is non material in nature. It is my belief that a material universe is not capable of creating something that is non material. Therefore it must have originated from outside of our material universe. In other words, God did it. Three rounds. Opening argument. Rebuttals. Closing argument. Seven point voting. I will have the burden of proof, so my opponent will go first Good luck to my opponent. I'm looking forward to this.
The various interpretations of God cannot all be correct.

Ok here are my arguments God is shown in different forms and ways to different religions- God or a similar entity is shown in different ways to different religions however all religions claim that their interpretation of God is different and superior. The different interpretations of God and the different story's and practices surrounding God cannot all be true, thus if their is a God he can only be pleased through one religion. Religions differ to much- Despite slight similarities between religions such as Islam and Christianity, there are still big differences between different religious interpretations of God, making it impossible to believe any but one of the different interpretations of God, thus rendering the process of going to heaven and hell a complete case of luck. In conclusion: There are far too many religious practices and interpretations of God for them all to be correct, thus rendering nearly all religions pointless and only one absolute.
Does tradition formal education have a value in today's society.

The resolution is: Traditional education has value in today's society. I affirm the resolution.Con makes a fundamental error in logic. He asserts that university graduates are often disappointed at the job prospects in today's economy. That;s true. However, that does not imply that they would have been as well off skipping traditional education and instead attempting careers in athletics or entertainment or anything else. Some would succeed, but a foolish strategy of buying lottery tickets would also produce somee successes. 1. Financial valueThe Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that having more years of traditional education both increases earnings and decreases the chances of being unemployed. In 2010, those with a 2-year Associates degree had 10% lower unemployment and 15% more pay, on average, than those with a high school diploma. The trend continue with re traditional education until, at the highest education, the unemployment rate is 80% less and pay over 250% higher. [1. http://www.bls.gov...].Recounting the relative situation of those with and without traditional education in the current recession, Leonhardt, writing in the NY Times, says,"College graduates have definitely been hurt by the current recession. Thousands find themselves out of work, and many of those newly unemployed will struggle to find a job that paid as well as their last one. Still, on a relative basis, a college education has never been more valuable." [2. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...]2. Quality of lifeCon wrongly supposes that value equates to financial success. Even if a traditional education brought no financial advantage, it still has substantial value. Hansen cites [3. http://www.quintcareers.com...] statistics showing traditional education leads to, among other things: longer life spans better access to health carebetter dietary and health practices greater participation in leisure and artistic activities more book purchases higher voting rates greater knowledge of government greater community service and leadership more volunteer work more self-confidence An educator in Pakistan summarizes the traditional philosophical value of education, with references, "Education is an essential human value. Without it, man is a slave, or reasoning savage. Education humanizes us. Man becomes more human as a result education. We are what education makes us. Education plays a vital role in human life and is always guided by certain rules in harmony with certain ideals, values and standard of life." [4. http://pakphilosophy.blogspot.com...]3. Networking Finally, "Many college graduates feel that the greatest benefit of their college years is the expansion of their social horizons. Meeting new people, making new friends, companionship, and sharing new experiences lead to personal growth." [5. http://militaryfinance.umuc.edu...]
Does tradition formal education have a value in today's society.

We thank all those who wish to participate in this debate. The rational for this is that many who have made it big either in the entertainment or an industry have little in the form of education, from athletes to entertainers into politicians. If you have a divergent point of view, I would love to hear it seeing that many of today's university graduates are disappointed in the placement opportunities and the time and effort expended in school. Traditional trades and colleges offering technical education are prospering while universities are scattering to attract students with somewhat inane incentives and coop programs.
The English Language Doesn't Have OFFICIAL Rules

I'm going to go straight in with my rebut. 1. Firstly, you stated that: "The English language does not, nor can have official rules. This is because the English language is a commonly agreed upon way of speaking that evolved over time and still evolves. " What you clearly just said was that 'something cannot have official rules because they may improve/change'. I have used a country's law as a good comparison throughout the debate and I will do so again. Is a country's law considered unofficial (based on what YOU stated) simply because it is always changing, mostly for the better? 2. You said: "If Oxford had invented the language, they would have the authority to change it. " I completely disagree with this statement. Alexander Graham Bell, as we all know, invented the telephone as an advanced method of communication. Then, inspired by this, Martin Cooper invented the first portable phone as an improvement to the telephone. IBM and BellSouth developed the first smart phone and so on. But based on your theory, should nobody have improved or developed the telephone just because they didn't invent it in the first place? I didn't think so either. Also, I would just like to reiterate that Oxford does not randomly invent words for their own fun, but only adds words to their dictionary once new words have evolved themselves and have been approved of by the majority (for example, the word "ain't"! ). 3. According to your argument, English was not invented by a certain individual "because no one went and said, "I'll invent a language that I will call English". " I totally agree with you! English was not invented but developed and evolved over time to become a language, an advance form of how we communicate with each other through speech and text. Laws and moral codes are the exact same however. They were never really "invented" but were written down and agreed upon by humans in order to keep the peace among ourselves, thus making it OFFICIAL- which is what we're debating about. We did not invent rules, the English language or even science for that matter. Instead, they are all things that the majority have decided to accept, making it official. Law is official till it is questioned, changed, then re-made official. Oxford may not have "invented" English but they certainly keep a record of the language's official rules. That is something nobody can deny. I hope we can all agree now that the English language DOES have its official rules- or else the voters of this debate would not be able to determine who "has better spelling and punctuation" when voting! Thank you for reading. Vote Con. [Also, it has truly been a pleasure debating with you. It was a very interesting debate (all the arguments along with the motion itself). I believe that the most important thing about debating is not necessarily to debate your own opinion, but to use it as a chance to look at things from a different point of view or even as a challenge. So thank you for such an interesting experience! ]
The English Language Doesn't Have OFFICIAL Rules

Thank you for your point. Like everything in life, English in fact can have and does have its official rules. In music, it is called musical theory, in maths, there are certain formulae and in English or any other language, it is simply known as 'grammar'. Of course, I totally agree that the English language "is a template upon which we build our own personal interpretation" like you said but it needs to be grammatically correct and the text therefore has to follow official rules for example a dictionary or "Oxford", so that it can be understood by readers to interpret one's art. Or if not, then it would no longer be considered as a "template". Yes the language does evolve and develop but so does a country's law. So judging by your theory, are you saying that we shouldn't obey the law or take it seriously because it will always change and develop? For example, at one point, people believed vehemently that homosexual marriage was unspeakable and so did the law. That is an example of improvement but does not indicate that all our previous laws must be wrong. Also, you stated that some may believe that "Oxford has the authority to change the English language". Well let me ask you a question, when has Oxford decided to randomly change the rules of English grammar for their own amusement without a reasonable factor to support their choice? Or when has the government of a modern country decided to create random laws without support, popularity of the people or even a referendum? In conclusion, what I am really trying to say is that of course there are "official" rules in English even though rules will always naturally change and improve. But are the present official rules of the English language or even an official set of rules for a language (ie. grammar) really that difficult to understand that they should be completely denied? Thank you and I beg you to propose.
The English Language Doesn't Have OFFICIAL Rules

The English language does not, nor can have, official rules. This is because the English language is a commonly agreed upon way of speaking that evolved over time and still evolves. Some might say that Oxford, or some other authority has the authority to determine the language's rules, and while these are generally accepted from an academic standpoint, the English language is a template upon which we build our own, personal interpretation. If Oxford had invented the language, they would have authority to change it, but because English is the product of gradual change, it is defined purely by its speaker and, generally, by its effectiveness at communicating with other "English-Speakers" and defining the way other people understand the language. If it is perceived as English, expressions are integrated into it by those that find them useful to communicate with. While a formal English is largely accepted by the community, it is not adhered to by English speakers entirely, and many that identify as "English-Speakers" might/do disagree with some opinions on it (Think the "Oxford Comma", and how there are two sides to that debate). This is an inconsequential subject, to me at least, but I am giving and debating my real opinion, so please be serious, somewhat, and let's actually have a conversation about this. Formality is not as important as communicating our views with each other. Thanks.
Debate of randomness!

I suppose, at 2pm on a Tuesday, thumbs do take on an orange hue. Do lockers have the right to Japanese emotions? It would be fattening to say so. Nevertheless, graphical nomenclature is fundamentally upsetting in terms of stripy amulets. One could postulate an emotion where ropes wear tie-dyed fedoras but I doubt that it would bring any rocks to Father Christmas, even when an ostrich manages to persuade a clock of its embarrassing anthropological warts. My inherent darkness likes to dance with pessimistic velcro, despite your gender budget far exceeding the magnetic flux density of badger fur. As it is in Zambia, it is in socks. For if we do not stand up for the rights of female mountains, how then can we form a painful octopus? Gerard would agree. Where am I defecating with sturdy bandages? It would initially seem insidious to caress purple navels but it is all subjective from a camel's lumpy viewpoint. There could be a reason for fingerless websites but how then could stepping stones judge the actions of cruise ships? It all seems very descriptive to craft one's uncle into leather slippers if we consider just how abstracted cockatoos can be at Peruvian delegations.
Debate of randomness!

And I suppose pickles are vehicular offenders? The right of stroking the sea plate is a fundamental principle of hippomonstrosesquippedaliophobia and antidisestablishmentarianism. I should know, I married an ostrich. Knives are very adequate in terms of 'what is mine', at least on the philosophical field. Ottomans should lick their feet squat or compound this blasted pencil. My extreme defocating on the pipes of english skittle bags is to show that lobsters can become Morrocan through labour and not a windowed ceiling. Your true table will be revealed by Kim Jong Un, the secret identity of the bartender chairman. The paperweight of the letter shall be defocated by king Merriam of the house of Klein, gardener of Iraq. It's offensive to confound oil, unless it's a baked mushroom cloud. The experimental radar split a paradise opposite the keen civilian as the packaged bitmap sandwiches the communist home. You ate a gorrila then swapped tires with the king of applenuts, the true secret of eternal life. You offend leprechauns by asking about the traffic pole! He is a very eager number!
Debate of randomness!

Your fabulous attitude regarding ethical camels truly exaggerates the rate at which crayons defecate hard radiators. But then again, aliens do tend to prefer green tea. Leather socks, on the other hand, choose to participate in homoerotic activities that cease to bear any relevance to the duplicity of sour teleprocessing monkeys. Sherlock would actually complement Vladimir Putin on his absurd fondness for Jersey Cow milk. Consequently, you may have bought flower pots on top of the mountain at noon, yet Skip dislikes mellow trees. Adam's wife studies English carelessly, she may have actually acquired a doctorate in barbaric photographic rituals, the kind that display the true extent that factories scent their administration staff. Are Mr. and Mrs. Eastwood very strange? I would hesitate to say that pelicans wear bowler hats. Periodically however, it seems relevant to highlight just how obstructing a damp alpaca can be to the academic research of curved paper. How then can one endeavour to impregnate a roof tile? It may seem challenging, but it is said that tall men have no fear of capitalist foliage. How might I conclude this orange dissertation? I will do so, my Belarusian amigo, by advising master craftsmen to steer clear of lemon databases, unless they desire to be dealt with slowly by demonic toothbrush manufacturers.
Debate of randomness!

The very premise that king kong is the pink unicorn of Uzbekistan is a false dichotomy, especially Dennis. Your final proportional coconut minister seeks to inform the communist party of Olympus that octopus is a flying sparrow. I always knew that the round rubber duckling would induce a response from french ducklings, it's a fact. It was regarded as a mighty lollipop within Iranian strings. I bet that the magic algorithm of your demise is the glorious sunshine on my mouse. However complicated it may be, know that gay algerians will always fix lightbulbs, it is in their nature. Is contempt a good tip? The searching glass of Uyghuris is astounding, I always thought Obama was the long-nosed cup. You will allow the printer machine to marry the purple paper tissue, as it is Georgian custom. The farm copes beside the consent and the king of atlantis confers the opinion of Doug. The bare chord exits behind the grave, as long as each practical motto reclaims the cured skin...The cloth mentors the stimulating adjustment of your fetish for marrying the spoon of York, the true king of Narnia. What do you think about the magical yellow unicorn who dances on the rainbow with a spoonful of blue cheese dressing? Llamas eat sexy paper clips. I enjoy spending time with the temporal rain forests' cheeses. You dropped an elephant? Eat some coal.
Debate of randomness!

I am flabbergasted by your odorous stance on pineapple spectacles. The sheer fact that hair follicles are unquantifiable clearly insinuates your fetish for Pakistani lawyers. Besides, the stringiness of your conga line allows me to calculate the algorithm determining the currency of King Elizabeth the Conjoined Coconut. I would further advise you to extrapolate your Japanese barbecues to allow pink mice named Kevin to get married, as is their right. What is the meaning of long pollution though? In the whole scheme of Radagast's Illuminati, silver shadows threaten to destroy the narrowness of Indonesia's weasel government. Nevertheless, cancerous blizzards tend to boil when Kim Jong Un disregards the balance of international leather table construction. You continue to portray a fashion sense of a disconcerted leprechaun.
Debate of randomness!

(Whatever is in brackets does not count as part of debate. Whoever says the most random things wins) Your license to publicly induce vomiting has just been revoked by the people's council of eastern Ukraine. A magic acorn is needed, a special acorn, the greatest giant of all, Vulkukan. Everyone knows santa is the incarnation of adolf hitler, it's obviously a bunny man. How many peacocks? probably none. Although I could use one frenchman. It takes around twenty of them to actually poop out a candle, but we'll manage. I think we've come very far. We've achieved so much since your expulsion from the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, I might very much say you're a motor engine. Beauty comes from the magic flying gremlin demon who will secure your secret german passport that will lead to Narnia. But remember, never hug the PhD, it might lick you back. I remember when Stalin hugged teletubbies, it's osama bin laden now. I guess I can just look at this bowl and say 'maybe' It's one of life's greatest questions, the mastermind of chopata, lord of the three little pigs. I got like 50 minutes, why you asking? I understand the train mechanic, I like cars. It's more of a trick. I suggest you revoke your plane ticket to zanzibar's top strip bar. I knew a little knock on the door of my noose, guy was an a*shole. (Good luck mate)