BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no logical proof for the existence of God.

In response to the scenario about 100 rolls of quarters: this doesn't prove God's existence in any way. Of course we would think somebody deliberately put the rolls of quarters there - because we know where quarters come from...we know that quarters are man-made. But your analogy (a very poor analogy, in my opinion) compares the rolls of quarters to the magnificience or complexity of the earth. This is a false analogy because, unlike quarters which are man-made, we are unsure about the origins of the earth (and universe, etc.). Hence the reason we are debating this. On to your next paragraph... Let's assume there are over 100 variables that are necessary for life on earth. I can't prove the exact number of variables...I expect there are many more. But frankly, the number of variables doesnt matter. If these variables werent set as they are (in other words, if the sun were farther away from the earth) then we wouldn't be here to talk about it. This does not mean it was caused by God. You suggest there are only two possibilities: (1) the Earth was fine-tuned by God, or (2) "there are googleplexes of universes out there." A googleplex is an office building, so I assume you meant "there are googles of universes out there". And yes, there are billions of planets out there and an incredible number of solar systems and galaxies. It all comes down to the complexity argument I presented in the last round. I don't know why you did not reply to my argument. You say "Logically it is more probable that a greater power had a hand in it here". But no, thats not logical at all. And it has nothing to do with the chicken or the egg argument, as you suggest. You say it started with God (which would have to be more complex than the Universe he created. And if God is more complex, he is, by definition, less probable than something less complex). So in fact it is logical to assume that it didn't start with God. The Universe was formed somehow, either by some variation of the Big Bang Theory or by God. The Big Bang Theory (along with Darwinian evolution) explains how matter can begin as something simple, and become more complex. Religion suggests that everything started from a most complex entity (God), who then created something less complex than himself. Simple events are more probably to have happened than complex events. So, contrary to what you stated, it is actually more logical to believe that God did not create the Universe. You say that your argument is "very strong evidence for God" but you have provided no logical evidence, in my opinion. I hope you realize that it is a logical fallacy to use the Complexity argument to try to prove God's existence. I hope that in your final post you will address the Complexity argument or at least provide some logical reasons for God's existence. Frankly, I'm not satisfied with you "100 rolls of quarters" example because I already refuted that in my second post. Looking forward to the last post, and feel free to invite me to any religion debates you create
There is no logical proof for the existence of God.

Because of the title of this debate, there is no reason I should loose. "There is no Logical proof for the Existence of God" If we break down this title we see two things: 1, the word Logic or Logical. and 2, (and this one i will admit is thanks to a user comment below) the word No. If you understand the word logic you understand the definition for logical which is: "according to or agreeing with the principles of logic" also "reasonable; to be expected". Summing it up the word logic means this: Reasoning or Sound Judgement. In my first round I started out with the thought that there are many "logical" ways to prove God and that is true because we as humans are very capable of using reason and judgment. Not saying they are correct but even good theories are simply logic or reasoning and judgment: these are not always correct. So, here is my logical reason to why there is a God. Think rationally with me for a minute. If you were to walk down to the street and see a quarter laying in the open you would think "someone accidentally dropped that there". If you were to see a roll of quarters you would think "someone accidentally dropped those there" but if you walked to the street and saw 100 rolls of quarters standing on their tops you would relies someone deliberately put them there. In the same sense we now know, thanks to Anthropic Principles, there are OVER 100 variables to our universe, these are conditions that make life on earth possible. One example is the distance of the earth from the sun. If it were any different we could not survive. So either this earth was finely tuned by a powerful something (what we would call god) or there are googleplexes of universes out there. Logically it is more probable that a greater power had a hand in it here. Not only is the logical evidence for God, It is very strong evidence for God.
There is no logical proof for the existence of God.

Thanks for the post. I'm going to respond to each of your paragraphs separately. First, you mention that a typical atheist might say "how can you say the world is beautiful when people die, etc". I would argue with anybody, atheist or believer, who doesn't see the beauty in the world. Both now, as an atheist, and in my past, as a Christian, I've been amazed at the beauty in the world. The idea that all the living organisms on the world came through evolution instead of a God makes it even more fascinating to me. As an atheist (who doesn't believe in the afterlife), I believe that any day could be your last, so life is more precious to me than if I believed I would live eternally. But the beauty we see in the world has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. I have heard the myth about the silver dollars filling up Texas, and when I was a Christian I would tell that to people too...but the truth is I have never found any evidence, any studies, any publications to suggest that is true. With all due respect, you're going to have to provide me more information about the study before I believe it. Many Christians use an argument that goes something like this -> "the world is full of complicated organisms and beauty, and it couldn't happen by chance. Just like a watch must be designed by a watchmaker, so also must the earth and all its complicated parts be designed by a 'Designer' (God)". I call this the Complexity Argument. First, evolution doesnt mean that things happened "by chance", as many Christians suggest. But that's not my main objection to the argument. Let's say we have a Complexity Scale of 1-3, with 1 being less complex and 3 being more complex. The numbers we chose don't matter -- all that matters for our argument is that a #2 is more complex than a #1, etc. A typical Christian's argument is that since the world is so complex, it must have been designed by an even more complex Creator. Of course, any God who created the Earth, and listens to/answers billions of prayers simultaneously, would have to be more complex than the universe. So the universe (and everything in it) is a #1 on the complexity scale, and God is a #2. Here's the rub: If the universe (a #1 on the scale) is so complex that it requires a Creator, then a #2 (God) would, by definition, also require a Creator. In other words, if God made the earth, then who made God? It leads to an infinite regress, which must end somewhere. So now the question is this: is it more probable it started with the Universe, or is it more probable that everything started with a God? A God would be more complex, and thus more improbable. This is one of my arguments against the existence of God. I look forward to your reply!
There is no logical proof for the existence of God.

I think there are many logical reasons for a God or Creator. In my view atheism is one of the things i dont understand more than anything else. How could someone live their life, this life, without a belief that there is something real out there. When you look around the beauty you see in almost everything. I realize as much as anyone as soon as I say look how beautiful the world is the argument fond to most who believe in "No God" is this "how can you say the world is beautiful when people die, when people starve, or when people are lonely? How can you believe in God when a monsoon wipes out so many innocent people?" This is always a difficult question to answer because the bible has the only answers to those questions and this is not a debate about the bible. The bible teaches that God made this world perfect but man chose to sin and the bible states in Romans "The wages of sin is death". That means because we have sinned the world and people in the world are fallen and in a fallen world bad things happen. Now that may cost me the debate for going off subject, nevertheless I will leave my comments. Even in the bible there are Many prophecies that have been proven true. It has been calculated that you could fill up Texas two feet deep with silver dollars representing the chances of having less than half of the predictions of the bible coming true. That is why the claims of a God in the bible are so relevant. One thing I cannot stand is when people fill these rounds up with countless words trying to prove their point. Given the fact that I am a mediocre reader I will end my chance at this round here and save my points about God, without the bible, for the next round. Sorry if that makes anyone upset. Ill do better next round! Thanks for the challenge too!
Resolved: Thirteen Year Olds Should Play Video Games Based On Their Age On The Ratings

Rebuttal 1:Lets stick to the topic shall we? We are talking about thirteen year olds. Not eight year olds. Also, a kid can walk in on is older brother watching true blood or the walking dead. Instead of just hearing it, he will see it. That is just like saying we should ban a family with kids from having cable because a little kid can walk in on some rated R T.V shows.Stick to the topic. Thank you and good luck!
Resolved: Thirteen Year Olds Should Play Video Games Based On Their Age On The Ratings

Case 1- Online Play Ruined Kids Being Able to Play Video Games Now, video games are usually not the problem, but it is the online play which can lead to bullying and language and kids realizing that real life people say these things so they can. Let's take for example, Call of Duty. Now, if you've ever played online before, you know all the language and profanity that is used by people of all ages. From 13 year olds to 40 year olds. Let's say you are a 13 year old and your younger brother or sister finds your game and plays it. Now he has learned many swear words, sexual language, and knows 15 guys that want to do his mom. He's going to go and tell his family all the words he knows and now it's not just the 13 year old that's hearing all this, but also his 8 year old brother. Now what this does is it allows this kid to swear in school and know things and say things he shouldn't. I have learned from experience that this happens all the time. Now we are talking about how the 13 year old got his little brother or sister to get all this knowledge which the 13 year old shouldn't have had in the first place. There's no other option to vote pro becuase you can't just look at the 13 year old. But the big picture.
Resolved: Thirteen Year Olds Should Play Video Games Based On Their Age On The Ratings

Hello and thank you for debating this with me. This has been a while since I have done this so I may be a bit rusty. Good luck!Case 1: Not Bad For Your KidMany case studies have been released to show video games have no effect on kids. In this study, (1) it shows that out of over thousands kids taken for the experiment, none, and may I repeat, NONE HAVE HAD ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON A KID'S BEHAVIOR. A quote from the article. "KEY FINDINGS Exposure to video games had no effect on behavior, attention or emotional issues. Watching 3 or more hours of television at age 5 did lead to a small increase in behavioral problems in youngsters between 5 and 7. Neither television nor video games lead to attentional or emotional problems. There was no difference between boys and girls in the survey results." End quote There is another article based on the same experiment if you aren't satisfied.Case 2: MaturityAt age thirteen, these teens know the difference between fiction and reality. If a parent finds rated M video games acceptable for her child, then who am I to argue with her. The stereotypical,"violent video games result in violence" saying has been disproved by science. (3) It has been proven that even kids with depression and attention deficit disorder did not become overly aggressive or bullies. Here is a quote from the article." Ferguson, associate professor of psychology and criminal justice at Texas A&M International University,and Olson studied 377 American children, on average 13 years of age, from various ethnic groups who had clinically elevated attention deficit or depressive symptoms. The children were part of an existing large federally funded project that examines the effect of video game violence on youths. The study is important in light of ongoing public debate as to whether or not violent video games fuel behavioral aggression and societal violence among youths, especially among those with pre-existing mental health problems. Societal violence includes behavior such as bullying, physical fighting, criminal assaults and even homicide. And the news media often draws a link from the playing of violent video games to the perpetrators of school shootings in the United States. Ferguson and Olson’s findings do not support the popular belief that violent video games increase aggression in youth who have a predisposition to mental health problems." End quote Overall, rated M video games have shown no correlation to a decline in mental health to thirteen year olds. this means there are no good reasons to restrict your kids from playing rated M games. Therefore, you must vote con! Thank you!1. http://www.gamesandlearning.org...2. http://www.forbes.com...3. http://psychcentral.com...
Astrology Is a Useless Pseudoscience

How can the relative position of us and our sun to constelations that are pretty loosely defined at best, or what dates you were born on give you advice in any situation. As I said before, the only real evidence for astrology is confirmation bias, and the probability that sometimes it works. But, with roughly 300 peoe born every minute (this is pretty rough, only on average from 2004, I couldn't find a more recent statistic) I don't thhink that everyone born on say, December 31, 2001 at 2:27 PM PST is just the same as me. Some are probably similar, but I garuntee there is a Capricorn even at my school of 538 that is a polar opposite, and a Taurus who I will never get along with.
Astrology Is a Useless Pseudoscience

Astrology is an ancient symbolic language that recognizes the universe as an indivisible whole and a method of exploring who we are, our relationships, and our role within the world, i.e. our career. The word is derived from the Greek words astron, meaning "star," and logos, meaning "word." Literally, it means the "language of the stars." Just as Egyptian hieroglyphics refer to concepts far more complex than a single word could convey, planetary symbols and movements are rich with layered meanings. Astrology works by looking at the relationships of the heavenly bodies at the exact time and place of birth, and deriving symbolic meaning from the archetypal energies represented by the position of the planets at that moment. Astrology can provide insight into any situation"from the personal to the political, and from the most intimate to the most mundane. In addition, understanding the archetypal energies in the future can help you better exercise your free will by making decisions in harmony with the energies of the time. If you read your magazine or newspaper horoscope and think that is all there is to astrology, you are deceived. What you find can be shallow and too general for anything more than entertainment. It is, however, an entry point to a deeper study of astrology.
Hockey is better then basketball

Sorry, I had camping trips, so I couldn't post my round. Anyway, for my 2 points, the first one is that sure, people complain about the last couple minutes of a Basketball game taking forever, but you have to remember that that game can also probably be decided in those minutes. Occasionally teams get beat big from start to finish but all it takes is a hot streak to get a team right back in it. Sure, pulling the goalie down 2 is exciting. But its more exciting if there's a chance of winning. Sorry, but thats all I have time for. Another camp.
Hockey is better then basketball

My friend, forfeited the round? Not like you, but I will continue on. Both the NHL and NBA have stars. In the NBA however, superstars drive everything. You don't hear much about teams. Instead, you hear about Lebron James and Kobe Bryant. An NBA teams is only as good as the superstar who leads it. That is why you see James and Bryant taking the majority of the shots. In hockey though, superstars can't do everything. Sure, players like Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin are famous, but they play almost as much as other people. Hockey has a lot of shift changes, so your team needs to be deep in order to be successful. For my second point, hockey is more Canadian and American, compared to basketball which is more American. The NHL has the Vancouver Canucks, the Edmonton oilers, the Calgary flames, the Toronto maple leafs, the Montreal Canadians, Winnipeg Jets and the Ottawa Senators. The only Canadian team in the NBA is the Toronto Raptors. In the Olympics, hockey is played by the Canadians and Americans. In basketball, only the Americans play in the Olympics. This is why this resolution must most definitely go to Pro. Thank you.
Hockey is better then basketball

Hello. For my first point, hockey is more exciting to watch. In a hockey game, pucks get shot at sometimes 100+ km per hour. In a game of basketball, all you need to watch is some people dribbling the basketball, and shooting from 3 feet from the net. The ball is extremely slow and its not fun to watch. In hockey, you hear the crowd suck in there breath thousands of times in a game. In basketball, the only fun part to watch is the time when someone slams dunk the ball. Dear readers, it is for these reasons why hockey is better then basketball
Violent games should not be allowed for kids

Instigator's Point: Children can be influenced by things much more easily and that consumption of violent video games causes violent behaviours.First: What causes violence in children?One research[1] concluded that violence in children is caused by two things:1: Being domestically abused (physically or sexually), which causes stress2: Not being able to express their emotions, which also causes stressPoint: Stress is one of the main things that causes violence. [2]Research has been conducted, and the most common result that people see from playing violent video games is the reduction of stress.[3] Violent video games, particularly in the first person shooter genre, has also said to improve eyesight. [4]But video games can still influence children to be more violent right?However, studies show that video games help control violence and keep it under control. Video games helped reduce aggressiveness and bully-like habits.[5]Finally, despite the fact technology is getting better, in the present day children can still draw the line between reality and fantasy. Graphics and visuals all may be getting better, but children can still see that, indeed, it is still a game. Quoted directly from this article[6], "As kids grow, most distinguish fantasy from reality." Assuming that we are talking about Rated M games (Rated M for Mature, can only be bought by adults), we are going to assume that the usage of the word children refers to that of children under the age of eighteen. Any child at least at the age of six should be able to identify the line between reality and a game. We can conclude that video games are not a major reason of violence in children.I await rebuttals from my opponent.[1]http://www.awareparenting.com...[2]http://www.springer.com...[3]http://www.tamiu.edu...[4]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[5]http://www.sciencedaily.com...[6]http://abcnews.go.com...
Violent games should not be allowed for kids

We get closer to technology by year. That means are minds are usually will be more influenced by technology. Younger children does not possess the decision making and common sense. They are at a time of life that they can be influenced by anything, they are still learning a lot capturing everything in great detail. When we are younger we process more information, that is why we perceive that time is going so slow. When it is actually going the same. While in this time of learning, children gets influenced by a gory or violent act. Soon they would think it is okay and everyone does it ( Violent Activities ). Soon even before they learn right from wrong, the violent video games are going to be in their head. Maybe they have a habit of doing something. then they get addicted, soon it just becomes your character. All because of a violent video game shown to a kid in a time learning. Con, I will continue this debate tomorrow.
starcraft (original not 2) is better than warcraft (not world of warcraft)

Apologies for missing two rounds. I argue the contrary to my opponent and propose that Warcraft 3 is a better game than Starcraft because it is more challenging and takes more skill. My proof lies in the fact that in round two my opponent said himself that "Warcraft is a lot more complicated and harder to play." Warcraft 3 is also better because it has lots of spells and abilities for lots of different units. It is not the game's fault if the player cannot keep track of his units or make good use of said spells and abilities. Because of this, the fact that it's easy to forget a vital power of a certain unit type only reflects poorly on the player and not the game. Warcraft 3 had better custom games than Starcraft as well. DotA, Line Tower Wars, Wintermaul, Footies, Element TD. All of them classic.
starcraft (original not 2) is better than warcraft (not world of warcraft)

I actually meant Warcraft riegn of chaos and frozen throne because other warcrafts cannot be compared to starcraft I wouldn't call the unit control simplified in Warcraft III. If anything, it's a lot more complicated. Lots of spells and abilities for lots of units, so much that it's quite easy to totally forget a vital power of a certain unit type. Making decisions on what units you want is also harder, because you have a very limited foodcap, so you really have to keep a good mix of units because you can't replace them quickly like you could in Starcraft. Keeping your units alive is way more important in Warcraft III. In other words, Warcraft is a lot more complicated and harder to play