BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If God Exists (Christian)

In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist. I wish to take this debate seriously, anyone that can prove that God is real, should accept. Definitions: God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe. Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods. Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods. Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future. Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything. Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Rules: First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals. A forfeit is an automatic loss. My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round. Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist. Merriam Webster
If God Exists (Christian)

In heaven, there is free will but we are in a state of paradise, which causes people to praise god more effectively thus eliminating sin. We can not know the contents of heaven but there will always be free will because the soul possesses free will and reason and heaven is the state, which the soul is more closely united with god. Why do humans have to be perfect in order for God to be perfect? God does not have to create humans with the capacity to only be perfect in order for him self to be perfect. If God created humans with no capacity for error, then we would be perfect and have an equality with god. You are not addressing my argument but rather are repeating your argument over and over again. I did quote myself. Why did I do it? Because I have free will and I can do that if I want to. God is not our puppet master ever. He could if he wanted to but he chooses not to in order to give us the choice to love him. God knows lust because he knows all that does not mean that he experiences it. Also, God did not create an imperfect thing. We chose to be imperfect by ourselves without god so god did not plan on us to fail but we happened to because free will has corrupted our reasoning, which is why we are imperfect. You are making an assumption that if God created us and we are imperfect then God is imperfect. That is an assumption by you, which is not backed up with any evidence. Also, you have given no viable model of a universe with no god. I can explain my model, which is simple. God created everything. But by you saying that there is no god but you have no way of proving it shows how your argument lacks evidence.
If God Exists (Christian)

Rebuttal: I’d like to point something out. “creating something with free will, which causes it to become imperfect, than to create a human that loves like a robot with no emotions or feelings what so ever.” Then you say, “Heaven is ultimate perfection and in order to get there we need to be able to choose to follow god and love god.” Therefore in heaven (since it is perfect, without sin) there is no free-will, and in heaven we are like robots with no emotions or feelings whatsoever. Lol. “No. That is not true. God being perfect means that he has a perfect explanation that supersedes creating a human being with the capacity to do error, free will.” This is false. If I am perfect, and I create something that is faulty then I am not perfect, therefore humans have to be perfect. Also, I already established that it is impossible to have free-will if God exists, you did not defeat it, you evaded it. Therefore my argument still stands untouched, it is impossible to have free-will if God exists, this defeats many of your arguments. “Before the fall, we were perfect but we chose to become imperfect via free will.” First of all, God knew this would happen, secondly free-will is impossible if God exists. "All the imperfections in the world are because of us." This is true. Before God created us, everything was perfect, but then we came and we did not obey god and the result was the world became imperfect.” You literally quoted yourself and then talked about how you are right lol. “God gave us the choice to not obey him because he wants for us humans to love him without him being our puppet master.” God is our puppet master in heaven according to you and, again, there’s no free-will if God exists. “Also, you can't say that my argument is not an argument if you don't address my argument at all and just state your argument claiming that it is logical.” That’s because the argument wasn’t an argument it was a rebuttal, and if it was an argument then it completely missed the target for I couldn’t even tell it was an argument. “Your argument seems logical but it is an illusion that everything has to be perfect with a god bound universe.” It is not an illusion it is the truth, a perfect thing cannot create imperfect things. “he is omniscient and he knows all, which includes lust because he knows all.” Aha! Exactly! If God knows lust then that breaks his moral perfection rendering him godless, thank you. Conclusion: All of my arguments still stand untouched and my opponent has not provided any arguments proving that God exists. The arguments my opponent has provided I have defeated. Thank you.
If God Exists (Christian)

"If God is perfect, everything he does and makes has to be perfect." No. That is not true. God being perfect means that he has a perfect explanation that supersedes creating a human being with the capacity to do error, free will. This is not a contradiction because he has a better reason for creating something with free will, which causes it to become imperfect, than to create a human that loves like a robot with no emotions or feelings what so ever. Before the fall, we were perfect but we chose to become imperfect via free will. "All the imperfections in the world are because of us." This is true. Before God created us, everything was perfect, but then we came and we did not obey god and the result was the world became imperfect. If God is perfect and we are imperfect, then that would mean that God gave us the capacity to do error, free will. God gave us the choice to not obey him because he wants for us humans to love him without him being our puppet master. What I mean by explain a godless universe is that you have not provide a reason how the universe was created, how life emerged, and how the whole universe can follow the laws of the universe without someone having created the laws. That is what I meant by a godless universe. Also, you can't say that my argument is not an argument if you don't address my argument at all and just state your argument claiming that it is logical. Your argument seems logical but it is an illusion that everything has to be perfect with a god bound universe. Heaven is ultimate perfection and in order to get there we need to be able to choose to follow god and love god. That is why there is free will. Also, going back to lust, it seems a bit off topic but like I said, if God is omniscient, then he knows all. By saying he does not know what lust means unless he experiences it claims that he attains knowledge in the way that humans experience it. But, he is omniscient and he knows all, which includes lust because he knows all.
If God Exists (Christian)

Rebuttal: Let me just point out a contradiction real quick. “He is perfect and always chooses to do the perfect thing” If God is perfect, everything he does and makes has to be perfect. If God created us; therefore we have to be perfect for your argument to remain true. Then if we are perfect, according to you, we cannot do anything imperfect. So saying, “All the imperfections in the world are because of us.” Is completely inaccurate and contradictory. “God gave us free will because he wants to give us the ability to love him but that also gives us the ability to show error.” If God is to be perfect, then we have to be perfect, if we show error, then God is not perfect. Also the very idea that God gave us free-will is a fallacy. If God is to exist at all, then nothing can have free-will. “Just because he knows what lust is because he created it does not mean that he is bound by it.” Yes it does. If God knows what lust is, it means he must have felt it. If he has felt it he has broken his moral perfection. Also what you said is also a rebuttal and illegal. “God definitely has free will. He has the ability to choose. Just because he knows what he is going to choose does not mean that he wasn't given the choice to choose.” I don’t think you get it, I’ll explain it again so you get it. You even said, “God is omnipotent and knows all” Since he knows all, past, present, future there is no free-will. If God knows the future, then it is fixed, he knows what he will do in advance. Since he knows what he will do in advance, he cannot change what he does, he has no choice, no free-will. “How do you know that there is a godless universe?” Because of the arguments given in round 2 and since there is no evidence, I was hoping you would provide some. “Because, there is no explanation for a godless universe but there is an explanation of god's universe.” I literally gave three arguments for a godless universe, and you are supposed to explain a God’s universe. Your three arguments (or whatever they were, I think they were rebuttals which is not allowed) were not really arguments at all so if you could actually give an explanation of a god’s universe that would be great. Conclusion: In Pro’s short response, Pro hasn’t provided any arguments for his side. While I have provided three, I await next round for Pro to attempt to rebut them.
If God Exists (Christian)

1. God gave us free will because he wants to give us the ability to love him but that also gives us the ability to show error. All the imperfections in the world are because of us. 2. God is omnipotent and knows all. Just because he knows what lust is because he created it does not mean that he is bound by it. God created the universe and knows everything inside of it that does not mean that he is bound by it. 3. God definitely has free will. He has the ability to choose. Just because he knows what he is going to choose does not mean that he wasn't given the choice to choose. He is perfect and always chooses to do the perfect thing. So, he knows what he will do in advance but that is because he got to choose what he does in advance. I have one question that I would like to ask you How do you know that there is a godless universe? Because, there is no explanation for a godless universe but there is an explanation of god's universe.
The Legalization of Drugs

Why are drugs bad? After all, anybody can walk into a grocery store or local pharmacy and take their pick of over the counter pain killers, sleep aids, anti-histamines and illness relievers. Why are those drugs perfectly safe but other drugs aren't? What makes cocaine different from No-Doz? The truth is that all drugs are based on natural ingredients. Even some of the more harmful drugs like heroin come from natural sources. Heroin, for example, comes from poppies. Cocaine comes from the coca leaf. Everyone knows that marijuana is herbal. Alcohol is just fermented grain. Right? What makes these drugs different from their natural bases is the ways in which they are manipulated for public consumption. Most marijuana is now laced with other additives and Cocaine goes through a rigorous process between its coca leaf form and the white powder that is sold in tiny zip lock bags. These drugs are manipulated by the manufacturers to have an effect that is more intense for the user. This can involve adding chemicals and other additives that can cause quite a lot of harm to the body. It is these additives that can cause a person to go through an overdose the first time they try something-even when they only have a tiny fraction of the amount of the drug that other people might have. The other thing that makes drugs bad is the way they affect people when they start to wear off. When someone takes an Advil, for example, it wears off easily-the side effects are minimal. When someone takes methamphetamines, however, they are usually treated to a racing heartbeat, night sweats and other negative effects. The person is likely to take more of the drug to keep the side effects from "coming down" at bay. These drugs can lead to depression, suicide, serious health issues and death. It can lead to physical, emotional and mental disabilities. Each person's chemical makeup is unique and when an illegal substance is introduced, it can cause any of the above symptoms. Now tell me; would you like to make that legal?
Gun Control

Yes, the psycho murderers can use knives (I don't know where they are going to get a bomb from) but so could the person getting attacked, or they could just use a gun against the attacker if they don't have a violent background. In Texas, you can't just carry around any gun. You can only carry a handgun on your person, which is part of gun control. But gun control could help improve death over there, as there was about 3200 gun related deaths in 2015, and it has most likely raised since then. Also, gun control has been proven to have lowered death rates in the states that previously did not have any.
Gun Control

First of all, psycho murderers can just use knives or bombs to end their victims. Second of all, many people would fail the background check simply for a ticket if gun control continued to get stricter. Third, In Texas, people are allowed to carry guns around freely. Very few Texans have been shot down as a result. It seems that gun-related homicides happen where gun control is stricter, probably because fewer people can defend themselves. Case-in-point.
Gun Control

With stricter gun control, gun stores wouldn't sell heavy weapons or automatic machine guns to customers, just like you are saying. Guns like that WOULD only be sold to the army. Background checks should still be done for any guns, including handguns, since you can still kill with a handgun. Handguns also can be used for robbing, since it can cause people to fear for their lives. If the shot is placed well enough, it can easily kill.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

I would like to start out by saying that I did refute your points. Ok now to move on. Ok my whole point with the crack story is the way that you are looking at morality. In the first arguement I briefly covered this. There are many ways that we can look at morality. Morality is something that is basically looked at as an opinion. My point is the way that you are looking at morality is ridiculous. You are looking at the results as determining something as moral or not. That's what my point with the crack example was. You may have good results and say that is moral (looking at the way you are determining morality). But, is the action of creating the good results moral itself? In this whole killing an innocent person situation, not it's not. My whole point all along is how even if it has good results, it isn't MORAL. And the topic clearly states it must be moral so I cannot possibly see how the pro can win on this point at all. Ok moving on. Ok those two paragraphs at the beginning of my second arguement was helping out my points. Sorry for not clearly stating that if it confused you in any way at all. Alright. Yes, we are allowing many people to die maybe if we don't kill this person. I understood your counter but cannot agree with it because this topic does not specifically say any circumstances at all. You never directly attacked my point saying that if we kill this person, what if that person that you are killing could have gone on to save many more lives? We just don't know. So, we can't kill an INNOCENT person. Ok, for your first contention, life is valuable. Yes, life is valuable. I 100% agree with that. But is killing an innocent person the correct way to save these lives when you are being hypocritical and killing a person, which is taking away their VALUABLE life? For your second contention, yes I understand that we are losing more lives. But, you can't say that it is morally allowable to kill a person to save these lives. It's immoral and you are taking away a life to save lives. That just doesn't seem right to me. For your third contention, aren't you condemning that innocent person to die? Have you ever seen Pirates of the Caribbean? The crew wanted to leave Will behind because they knew if they went after him they would most likely die and be in a bad situation. However, Elizabeth said, "So you want to condemn him to die?" See, she knew that having that innocent man die would be immoral. I don't feel your points are any longer standing and mine have been attacked but are still strong. I urge you to vote for who you feel truly one this round. Also, I would like to thank my opponent for a very enjoyable debate round. I had a great time. Good luck to you in the tournament too. :]
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

I will start with your last statement. You said that all four of your points stand strong but you never refuted my attacks on them. Now your introduction, selling crack obliviously isn't moral nor is it in any way relevant to this debate because the consequences are that your family has money but also ruins the life of many others. Like in my intro and the theories of philosophers say that is the end is what determines whether an action is moral. Your second point is that we don't know the circumstances you obviously just ignored my counter on that or chose not to analogy it because I refuted that and then you just restated your main point without debating mine. We don't know the circumstances but we do know that either we kill this person or many die. You never directly refuted my first point but you did say that what about the person you are killing. First of all you can't through in any hypothetical social value on this person because it is just as likely if not more that one of the ones you are saving can save many more. The person's life also has value but as I stated before it is the lesser of two evils. Many people are more valuable than one person. My whole second contention was about that you are losing more life on the negative side. On my third point the resolution says that you kill the 1 innocent or many innocents one of the above is going to die. With my points standing and hers not even refuted I urge you to vote for who you think won. (Hopefully me : ) Thanks for a good debate have a fun rest of the tournament.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

The resolution clearly states MORALLY permissible. How can you possibly saying killing an innocent person is moral? The outcome may be good but the way that you are looking at morality is way out of hand. For example. You are the head of your household. You have a wife and two small children. Your family is in desperate need of money. You decide that you need to sell crack to earn money for your family or any other drug. You can say, but hey, the outcome was great! I am getting money and supporting my family! Just because the outcome of killing a person but be good, it isn' moral and according to the resolution, it has to be moral. I am not saying that the outcome wouldn't be good. It most likely would be but I'm saying that we can't allow an immoral situation to occur. Like I stated earlier, we could have other options. There isn't any circumstances whatsoever. What if there is another way out of the situation? With your chicken example, so eating meat isn't immoral. So, if you killed a person and ate them, do you still believe that that is moral? I don't think so. A chicken and a human are two completely different things. For your first contention, life is valuable. I am not saying that life isn't valuable. However, we don't know if there is another way out of the situation. We also don't know if that person that you are killing could go on to save many more lives. Also, like I said before, it isn't moral to kill a person. Isn't the life of the person you are killing valuable? For your second contention, life is taken away. Life is also taken away on your side so I don't feel that we should be talking about this. My whole point is that this topic isn't extremely descriptive for reasons such as not knowing circumstances and/or other options. For your third contention, killing and condeming a person to death are no different. So, are you saying that an innocent person has the responsibility to save others? I don't really understand that. So, why would that be condemning to death? I stand strong on my 4 points and have gone against his contentions. With that, I strongly urge you to vote con in this debate. Thank you.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

I will start off with your first point. Now as stated by my definition of kill, which was never refuted, means deprive of life or cause death. When you are negative you support killing many instead of one. Either way does not have good causes but as stated by the resolution you have to choose the better of two evils. II. With the debate teacher whether she could choose when put under pressure doesn't matter in whether it is moral or not. Under pressure your mind is clouded and judgment isn't its greatest which is why we are debating it here instead of asking people under gunpoint. Just because Memphis couldn't make free throws under pressure doesn't mean it was immoral to make free throws. III. Killing a person obviously isn't a good thing to do, but would you rather kill one or many? Point 2: The resolution says it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people. There is a very key word in there. Save: to keep from being lost. The resolution states that killing saves them meaning that without killing then many die. Point 3: Once again whether or not a survey says that they can do it doesn't mean that they its immoral. I probably couldn't kill a chicken directly but I still believe that it's moral to eat meat. You cannot let personal emotions lead you decision. Point 4: We do know that the plan will work. It is inherent in the resolution that if you kill one innocent you will save the lives of many. You haven't refuted any of my points so I can't exactly say anything except that they all stand.