BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is it reasonable to believe in a God

1. I would accept that most things seem to have a cause. However, that could be the human mind forming connections were there are in fact none. Also, if we delve into quantum theory, there are a few example of things that do in fact pop out of nothing, with no cause. For example, quantum fluctuations in a vacuum are in fact the temporary appearance of energetic particles from empty space, an effect which has no cause. 2. In terms of the spaceship example, I would say that the spaceship is built for a specific purpose, as is the dictionary, and so must be designed. However, there is no evidence that the universe has such a specific purpose, so there need not be a designer. The complexity of human DNA is explained by evolution and requires no outside designer. Complexity gives organisms a higher chance of survival, so it stands to reason that as time went on, organisms would become more and more complex, culminating in the DNA of humans. 3. I cannot see how you would prove that such a thing as absolute morality exists. You can say that no-one would condone rape and torture of infants, yet this still happens, and I can imagine people who would believe there was nothing wrong with it. In fact, given the wildly different opinions surrounding pretty much every ethical issue, I would say that an a posteriori approach makes relativism seem the more reasonable approach. I think that it is more reasonable not to believe in a higher being as there is no evidence of him present in our world. The lack of purpose in our universe, as well as quantum theories showing us the lack of cause in our universe makes this conclusion much more evidence-based than that such a being exists.
Is it reasonable to believe in a God

This is just a brief reply to pro's starting points, before he fully explains his point. 1. I would say that the cosmological argument doesn't show that every effect within time must have a cause, it assumes it. There is no reason why the universe must have a first cause. It could be a case of infinite regress, whereby there is no start. 2. We cannot know how well the universe is designed, as we have nothing to compare it to. For all we know, it could be terribly designed, but as it is all we have known, we assume it is intricate and well-designed. 3. That's a pretty big assumption to make with no evidence. I would say that morality is more relative than absolute.I think that an action can be right or wrong according to the situation, and can understand why someone may even prefer a different option. Of course this is hardly a proof of relative ethics, but I don't think this point can be sufficiently proven either way.
Is it reasonable to believe in a God

It is more reasonable to believe that a higher being that transcends mankind and is eternal exists than to not exist. Starting with a simple introduction in first section. 1. The cosmological argument, shows that every effect within time must have a cause. 2. The universe has intricate design, inbuilt information that needs a transcendent mind. 3. There are moral absolutes which require a moral law giver that transcends human thought
Is it reasonable to believe in a God

1. The idea of vacuums was not intended as a reason as to how the universe was made, it was simply intended to point out that the idea of cause and effect is not as straightforward as some might assume. Given that we have an example where there is no identifiable cause, it seems reasonable to think that not everything is ruled by cause and effect. In fact, cause and effect could very well be a human flaw in trying to understand the world. But anyway, this was only a minor point to suggest that cause and effect aren't set in stone. 2. This is where things get interesting. I can definitely say that it is NOT circular reasoning to say that it is more reasonable to think the universe has no purpose, it is a perfectly logical conclusion based on our observations of the known universe, the same basis from which you supported cause and effect. I think this video featuring Neil deGrasse Tyson amply sums up the arguments for the lack of purpose in the universe. As to the idea of Dna being a "code" or a source of "Information", that is not what DNA actually is. People like to make real things simple to digest, so give them false attributes. The idea of DNA having a objective purpose of giving us our characteristics and traits is unreasonable. DNA is just a series of chemical reactions, which obey the same laws as a observable chemical reaction, like magnesium and oxygen. That these reactions then create proteins doesn't mean that that was their objective purpose, it is just a following of the same rules. This article explains it sufficiently:http://livinglifewithoutanet.com... 3. This idea of an absolute morality is completely unreasonable. In my set of morals, I don't believe that torturing babies for fun is moral, a view that is shared with a majority of humans. However, there may be some people which disagree with this. So who are we to tell them that they are the ones who have got it wrong? Is it because there are more of us? But that goes against your idea of an absolute. Imagine if there was a society of aliens on a planet, who have no problem with these actions. Who are you to say that they are in the wrong, that a moral absolute is in place, and they are acting immorally. If they ask that, how would you respond? "It's a moral absolute because...errr....because people on our planet say so". You have no evidence other that our own opinion that these actions form a moral absolute. This is why I think that believing in God is unreasonable. In the same way you cannot find any proof of a moral absolute, based on our subjective opinion, you cannot argue to a eternal , necessary being from our contingent, short-lived lives. Any "evidence" to the contrary is just our flawed way at looking at things, such as the perceived "purpose" in the universe. One only needs to look at the many contrasting theories of supernatural beings that have been presented over time to see that any attempt to reason for God is doomed to failure.
Scrubs vs Jocks

May I wish my honourable opponent luck in this (very informal) debate. In this argument i will develop a sense of informality, which hopefully will not be penalized by the voters. In this argument, you mean that scrubs are better than jocks in sports. Scrubs are n00bs in video games, which means that they have to play videogames in order to be a noob. Therefore, a scrub plays games, even if a fighting game. A jock plays sports a lot, and likes to watch others. Obviously a jock has more experience, and skill, and will most definitely win. Thank you.
Women are being oppressed by society

Women are not being oppressed by society but by themselves. Women are very competitive and spend alot of time trying to look good in order to "compete" with other women. Women are always talking to other women about their clothes and makeup and asking what brands, and where did they buy this or that. They dress sexy and spend hours in front of the mirror, first to make their girlfriends jealous and secondly to get attention from men. Also sexier women get more attention and more priveleges in life. Look at Hollywood...look at the porn industry...looks matter. Looks bring attention, money and fame. So it's not that women are oppressed, it's just that they figured out how to play the game. After years of being oppressed they found a way to be powerful. An unattractive person can easily look better with makeup, the right clothes and hair coloring....add a tan and a boob job and guys will eat out of your hands!!
Women are being oppressed by society

BOOBS!!! BODY!!! SEXY!!! That is all that our younger generations are being taught today. When women gained suffrage in the early 1900s, they gained freedoms. But it seems that instead of being politically and governmentally oppressed, women are now being oppressed by society. Young girls and women of all ages are told that they MUST look a certain way or else there will be horrible ramifications. 1) Your man will leave you. (he wasn't worth it in the first place if that's the case.) 2) It is the only way to be accepted (Find a new group to hang out with) 3) You can never get a date (NOT TRUE. Men can love too and they can see beyond looks) 4) Women waste a lot of time in front of the mirror that they could be spending bettering their mind or just hanging out for the sake of living. I know that my debate on SUVs and women seems to contradict this debate, but that one was all in good fun and did not accurately represent my true beliefs. I hope it did not offend anyone and I hope everyone takes it with a grain of salt and with a humorous smile. I intended as a joke and am sincerely relaying this message. I think it is time for women not to care about appearances. It is time that they don't worry about how society will judge them. Humans have no room to judge others, only God can do that.
Sexual orientation is determined at birth.

Pro's argument about the female and male genitals seems to be a non-sequitur. Read what one is here.[1] The genitals have little to do with sexual orientation. While the genitals determine biological sex and biological sex correlates with sexual orientation, biological sex is not the cause of sexual orientation. If sexual orientation was determined at birth, then all identical twins would have the same sexual orientation. However, it is not the case that when one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual. As has been established by several studies on this matter, not 100% of twins have the same sexual orientation as the other, in fact it varies from as little as 20% of twins sharing the same sexual orientation, to as much as 60% in some studies.[3, pg 271] Source:[1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;[2] https://genepi.qimr.edu.au...;
Facts There is a (Higher Power)

To my opinion it's crazy,Hahaha! Everything I said is speculation? No real argument? Man we must be living in two different planets or something. I could of swore everything i mentioned we could of agreed on to a degree because I thought we were living on the same planet. From the time you were born until whatever age you are now I am confident and will say I know you can't tell me they have been a flaw in this grand design we called the universe in terms of design. Like I mentioned previously everything has and is still working flawlessly together. So you mean to tell me you really really think this Grand design that is evident, proven with science or whatever you want to use your basis with knocks out the idea that A God does not exist just because you don't see or ever heard from a God? I mean It's a pleasure for me to debate how someone can honestly believe the whole galaxy, solar system, animal/human life came out of no where like Bam! And just seemed to work perfectly together with no artist behind it for a long perfect track record. I mean really? Things just pop out and just happens to work for centuries ha!
Facts There is a (Higher Power)

What my opponent describes is mere speculation with no real sound logic or argumentation. Essentially what he argues is that the universe is too complex to not have a diving creator which is not true at all. He cites no evidence to definitively prove the existence of any higher power. His argument totally violates occams razor as it adds a 100% unnecessary assumption. Furthermore, the complexity of any given thing is totally relative to the knowledge and intelligence of a person. Calculus to me is very simple because I know much about it, whereas a highschool who is still learning algebra would see calculus is incredibly complicated.
Facts There is a (Higher Power)

I accept! First, I'd like to lay down a framework as my opponent provided none. I shall use the first round to accept and lay down some groundwork. First of all, the BOP shall remain solely on my opponent. He must prove beyond reasonable skepticism that a god exists. The BOP is his alone due to Hitchen's razor which states that the BOP lies solely on the asserter of an appositive statement. For example, if I claimed "Unicorns exist!" and someone asked me to prove it, I could not say, "you must accept that unicorns exist because you have no proof that they don't!" Rather, you must reject the hypothesis that unicorns exist. Therefore, my opponent must prove "There is a higher power" beyond reasonable doubt. All I must do to win this debate is force the judge to reject that appositive statement. If all of my opponents arguments are successfully rebutted, then I have won. Next I would like to define a "Higher Power" as the physical formal-objective existence of a conscious agent that is superior to the laws of nature. Good luck to my opponent! I look forward to a pleasant discourse.
The Earth is round rather than flat

I have more arguments that I can present in favor of the round Earth, But I don't think that that will be necessary and that my initial arguments will prove to be sufficient. RebuttalsTo be clear, The Burden of Proof lies on me primarily in this debate because of the wording of the title. However, It is conspicuous that my opponent's entry into Round 2 contains no reasoning for why the Earth must be flat rather than round, Nor does it contain a clear explanation of exactly what forces support the flat Earth theory-- only basic facts about the nature of the flat Earth model and equally unqualified claims that these things conveniently cannot be studied because no one will grant a study into something considered so basic. My opponent does not explain how the Sun and the moon stay in the sky, Or why the Sun apparently changes its revolution above the Earth as the year goes on, Or exactly what force is propelling the Earth upward because no one can explain how these things happen because these things do not happen. In response to "3: Lack of Evidence, " the photographic evidence of the round Earth is not something to be relied on to prove that the Earth is round because; yes, It is relatively quite easy to doctor photos of a round Earth. This is why I rely on experiments that can be conducted here from the familiarity of the ground to prove that it is actually part of a sphere/spheroid. I believe that the five arguments I laid out in the previous round do more than soundly prove my stance without access to a rocket ship, And I look forward to my opponent's responses to them.
The Earth is round rather than flat

Thank you to PandaXpress for accepting my challengeArgument #1The Coriolis Effect is a phenomenon observed in the world around us in which the air flowing from where it is warmest, The Equator, To where it is coldest, The poles, Is curved by the spin of the Earth on its axis. This can be seen most effectively by observing the direction of the spiral of a storm system relative to its location on the map: hurricanes and typhoons in the Northern hemisphere spin counterclockwise and clockwise in the South. This is impossible on the flat Earth model, Which does not spin and, If it did, Wouldn't create the same effect [1]. Argument #2The moon's visibility is constantly waxing and waning as the Earth casts varying shadows on it. Furthermore, If the Earth casts a perfect shadow over the moon, A lunar eclipse occurs. This can only happen in the round Earth model, Since the moon and Sun are both floating above the Earth in the flat earth model, And the Sun never goes under to cast a shadow on the moon. Argument #3The way that the moon is seen varies as you change latitudes; it flips from seeing it in the North and in the South. This concept is illustrated below: (The image may not appear; if it doesn't, I'll attempt to put it in the comments). Again, This is impossible on the flat Earth modelArgument #4The stars in the sky change over the course of the year, As is evidenced by the visibility and invisibility of certain constellations seasonally. This is because of the Earth's revolution around the Sun, Changing its position in space as it orbits. This is impossible on the flat Earth model not just because, On the flat Earth model, We are going eternally up, Creating the effect of gravity, So the stars either wouldn't change or would never change back. Argument #5If you were to stand on a bay and watch a ship sail from you straight into the ocean, You would first see the ship's hull sink into the horizon, Then the sails. This can only be accounted for by the downward curvature of the Earth. A video of this concept can be found in the "Resources" section below. Resources[1]: https://stratus. Ssec. Wisc. Edu/courses/gg101/coriolis/coriolis. Html Video: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=WOZd6t9uzhY Image AttributionForums of TheFlatEarthSociety. Org (https://forum. Tfes. Org/index. Php? Topic=5015. 20)
The Earth is round rather than flat

I humbly accept your challenge. For starters, I would just like to quickly clarify something on my half- "flat" for this debate should NOT imply entirely smooth and even, But should rather be more like a plane than a sphere. Disclaimer: I'm not a flat-earther myself, But I have some experience debating against the round earth just for the fun of it, So I should hopefully project an accurate description of why the Earth is flat. Thank you for this opportunity for such an interesting and certainly unique topic.
which roman leader julius or augustus

emm, yeah. This was not really what I expected. My opponent has the burden of proof and he hasn't offered any reasons as to why a dictator is "better", nor why a father in this context makes him better. That is like me saying that Augustus is better because we honour him with the month of August. That does not in itself prove that he is "better". My opponent still has the burden of proof to demonstrate why Caesar would be a better ruler. It's also incumbent on my opponent demonstrate a viable criteria on which to base his opinion.
Should Marijuana be legalized

I know I indicated I would make my own case in one of the next rounds. However, if Pro does not return to the debate by the next round, I shall not make any more of a case after all, since I imagine people will want to give me default points for Pro's forfeiture. I hate such a practice, but have learned that my dislike for the practice won't make a difference one way or another.Here's a fun limerick (in case you wish to derive at least some enjoyment from this round):A goat on a stroll by a brookFound an old movie film, and partook.'Was it good?' said is mate.Said the goat, 'Second rate!Not nearly as good as the book.'
Should Marijuana be legalized

I appreciate that my opponent has made his case in round one, giving me to open with a rebuttal, as I do best (especially given the constraints of the debate).When my opponent says that he thinks marijuana (cannabis) should be legalized, he has not specified where. He also has not stated what about it should be legalized: its possession, its traffic, its cultivation, or anything else. He has just jumped in and stated that it should be legalized, and stated some of its uses. The traffic and possession of marijuana has indeed been decriminalized in a number of countries, so my opponent is being rather ambiguous in his opening argument.Your use of yourself as an example is interesting. I'll do the same: in a sports injury, I once suffered stress fractures of the lumbar (large vertebrae). I did not receive an accurate diagnosis, or treatment, for months, yet took no pain killers. You do not need to be stoned to endure a knee injury.I shall make my own case in one of the next rounds.
Should Marijuana be legalized

I think that Marijuana Should be legalized because it can be used for much more that just medical use. I believe it can be used for things like clothes, string, sowing material and of course medical use. Now I now there are some people out there who would disagree with me and that is fine but i have knee issues and every now and again my knee dislocates do to sporting activities and when I am given morphine and multiple doses to be exact it still isn't enough to ease the pain, I also have other medical issues as well and there some points that I wish had something to ease the pain.
Should Video Games be less Violent

Not all video games are violent. And even if those video games are violent, those are not bad for you. According to American Psychologist journal, playing video games may improve learning, health and social skills and strengthen a range of cognitive abilities. The researchers behind the study also said the children"s creativity was also added by video game play even if it is violent. However, the study would be false if a child is playing violent games in computer or mobile. Also, according to the study, although the game is violent (for example, shooting games), it boosts up a player"s scope to think about objects in three dimensions just as well as academic courses built to enhance the same skills would. (Natural World News) An Oxford study suggests that playing violent video games is "no more likely to ruin young child"s behavior than those considered not harmful." Rather than their content, the research found out that the time young people spend playing games (more than three hours) has an effect on their behavior or their performance in school, even if slightly. (Telegraph UK) And, video games are not as harmful as parents" think it is. AP Study Notes presented details how violent video games aid children and economy. Violent video games give healthy and safe opportunities for children to analyze rules and aftereffects of violent doings. It also allows young people to experiment with issues such as war, violence, and death without experiencing it live. By allowing adolescent boys to play these games, it lowers the chance of causing physical harm and it also grants them of displaying assault and such without doing it in the real world. A 2007 study finds out that 45% of boys played these kind of games because "it helps me get my anger out" and 62% played it because "it helps me relax." Violent video games, according to ProCon.org, do not cause low levels of empathy for children. And, if you are to banning violent video games will never be able to do that because of the following: "The Joint State Government Commission (2008): Video games are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and laws imposing restrictions on their sales must withstand "strict scrutiny," an exacting legal test that virtually guarantees invalidation. The courts have found that the social science research on the dangers age-appropriate games pose for children is insufficient to support statutory restrictions on free expression and that the existence of an effective voluptuary rating system makes penalties unnecessary (p. 2). Western culture has frequently dwelt on violence from its origins in Homer"s epic poetry and Greek drama down to such later media as the novel and the opera. Movies, popular music, and television all deal routinely with depictions of violent acts. If measures are taken to address the effects of violent media, it is important that no particular form of media is unfairly discriminated against (p. 1)." ProCon also states that a relationship between violent video games and a player"s behavior is not proven.
Should Video Games be less Violent

Video games, in my opinion, show what's reality. According to Huffington Post, there are many researchers and studies of universities all over the world that show that video gaming is actually good for people. Some video games can be steroids for your brain, may make you smarter, may slow the aging process, may help dyslexic kids read better, can be a pain reliever, can improve eyesight, can be as effective as one-on-one counseling, and can help stroke victims more fully recover.