BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Strong Evidence of God's Existence

This is a new theory I have recently discovered and am excited to put it to the test. I am confident by reviewing his debate record that he can come up with a good opposing argument, and provide me with some helpful, positive feedback. Opening Arguments My argument will be based upon a theory that once the likely hood/statistic of an event becomes so rare/unlikely, our mind rules it out as impossible, or highly improbable, without the help of intellectual intervention. To be perfectly clear, I am not talking about events we would consider "miracles". I am talking about events we would consider "impossible". We declare them as impossible because even though there is always the extremely small chance that the event was some sort of freak circumstance of chance, the likely hood/statistic of that event happening by chance is so high, our mid rules it out as impossible, or highly improbable, without the help of intellectual intervention. Example: You come across a man who is holding four decks of cards. He throws those cards all up into the air. The cards begin to land in a fashion that creates a perfect card castle. Nobody in their right mind would write that phenomenon off as a circumstance of chance. You would have seen strong evidence, or strong grounds for belief, that an intellectual force you cannot see or understand is at work (whether that intellect is a magician, a trickster, ext. .. ). You see, the actual statistic doesn't really matter. At some point the odds of that event happening become so rare we have to consider it evidence of intellectual intervention. You and I both know that if I were to throw four decks of cards in the air one million times, a hundred million times, ten trillion times, it would never land as a card castle, ever. Keep in mind I am not saying you have 100% proof. You will always have a small chance that it could have happened by chance. But I am saying the phenomenon is so rare and perfect that you absolutely have to consider it to be strong evidences of intellectual intervention. I will be arguing that science itself is our evidence of God"s existence. I personally believe that the creator set it up that way. Call it his sense of humor to have the biggest skeptics and antagonists in the universe working day in and day out unintentionally coming up with more and more evidence of his existence. The more we find out and understand about how perfect this planet really is to contain life, the less and less probable it becomes that it was all just a circumstance of chance, and the stronger the evidence gets that a supreme being was at work in the creation. In the main arguments I will explain four examples of science that create an environment so perfect and rare, nobody in their right mind can write it off as some freak circumstance of chance. Steven Michael Anderson
Smoking Packet Pictures

I'm afraid I can't accept my opponent's change in resolution, despite that he's new to the site and it was an innocent mistake. The reason I can't accept the change in resolution is because I agree with my opponent that the under-the-counter law is ridiculous, and in my opinion simply the Government's way of looking like they are doing something about stamping out smoking, without actually stamping out smoking. I would not have accepted this debate were it about the under-counter law, as I have no arguments as to why the law will be effective in any way. I was going to accept the change in resolution and just research why the law was enacted in the first place and so forth, but after 15 minutes Googling, couldn't find one convincing argument for it. I'm not really sure what to do here, because I don't know if it's bad conduct to not accept a resolution change mid-debate. On the other hand, if I accept the change of resolution, it will be an instant loss for me regardless, because I happen to agree with my opponent's position as CON. This is basically how I see it though: the debate resolution I accepted was "Smoking Packet Pictures", and my opponent's first round argument made it quite clear that this is what we would be arguing. My opponent has conceded to my arguments from Round 1 that the pictures should remain in place, and I therefore have nothing to add. We've agreed that the pictures should remain in place, hence I have fullfilled my obligation as PRO.
Smoking Packet Pictures

I'm in Australia, not the UK, but we have similar graphic pictures on our smokes, and they are a hotly debated topic here too. I'd like to point out that I'm a smoker myself, and that yes, I am in favour of the new graphic pictures on cigarette packets. My opponent hasn't really made any arguments worth contending in his first round. He has expressed that he's not sure why the Government put the pictures there in the first place, and that he believes it's 'pathetic' to have done so. He gave an anecdotal account of his 15 minute walk to the shops in the rain, only to find that his cigarettes had a picture of open-heart surgery on it. Apparently, this p*ssed him off. The rest of his self-proclaimed 'rant', regarding unemployment and tax-payers, is unrelated to the resolution and will thus be ignored. I will now give 3 reasons why the graphic images should remain on cigarette packets once they are in place. Neither reason on its own is sufficient in arguing the resolution, but the first 2 taken together certainly do. The third is my pathetic attempt at humour, and should be ignored by both voters and fans of good comedy alike. 1. Cigarettes are the worst drug on this planet, bar none. In Australia, 2004-2005, 5% of drug-related deaths were caused by illicit drugs, 6% by alcohol, and 89% by cigarettes [1]. That 5% there. .. that's heroin, coke (not -a-cola), 'shrooms (not shitake), ekkies, ice, you name it. Absolutely dwarved by cigarettes in the killing stakes. I don't think I need to elaborate with the names and symptoms of the many ways cigarettes kill smokers like my opponent and I, as I think we all have a good understanding of that in this day and age. This is thanks, in part, to those pictures we see every time we grab a smoke. [1] - . http://www.quitsa.org.au... 2. Early research showed that the graphic labels were effective in reducing the number of cigarette smokers [2][3]. Now that they are in place, if they reduce smoking by even 10%, 1%, then it has been a successful endeavour. If they have no effect at all, they should remain in place, for the very reason my opponent gave: removing the pictures will 'just. .. waste more tax payers money. ' If the images are counter-effective, and the prevailence of smoking has actually increased since the introduction of the pictures, then I have no argument. All recent polls and reserach, however, suggest otherwise. [2] - . http://www.quit.org.au... [3] - . http://www.cbc.ca... 3. Much fun can be had gluing two of the macular degenerated eyes and a cancerous mouth [4][5] to one's bong in the arrangement of a face. Or, if you don't smoke pot, onto a nice vase. [4] - . http://www.theage.com.au... [5] - . http://k53.pbase.com... Well I'll leave it there and we'll continue in Round 2. Oh, and I can't post comments because I'm in Australia and don't have Optus telephone, so I can't verify my existence or some crap like that. Thanks.
Smoking Packet Pictures

Perhaps my fellow countrymen and women (UK) if you by chance are a smoker like myself or if you by chance stumble across a new pack of Cigs in your travels, you will see that the government has decided oh so wisely to pass another law against us, and put pictures on the back of packs to remind us of the hellish trouble we will get in if we continue smoking, as if we didn't know already, and are passing another law that cigarettes must be served under the counter to stop i quote "impulsive" buying. Can someone please, in the name of god, please tell me why the government is doing this? Its so damned pathetic, it drives me up the wall, that they think this will do anything, I dont buy cigs because i had an impulsive urge to do so, I did it because ive had a bad day and ive walked 15 minutes down the bl**dy street in the rain to go look for some. And the pictures, wow, the picture of a man having open heart surgery is suddenly making me want to stop smoking, No seriously it isn't, its just p***ing me off. Why cant the government think of something else to do in its spare time, like oh, lets think, the thousands of people becoming unemployed weekly. Its just an example of the government being a nanny state, so I say, Dont remove those pictures, because its just going to waste more tax payers money, but just leave us and our cigarettes alone! If in my ranting I was not clear enough My argument is that I am against The pictures and the Cigarettes under the counter law
Resolution: Intelligent Design is not a Scientific Theory

I appreciate CON's Predicament. I know that real life can occasionally pull us away from our "Internet obligations." In the spirit of the conversation, I will pass this round and use round four to rebut CON's opening argument and briefly conclude. My one request is that CON uses round four towards similar purposes and doesn't introduce any new arguments in his response to my rebuttal or his conclusion. I look forward to CON's response.
Resolution: Intelligent Design is not a Scientific Theory

If Con wishes to make opening argumentation and use round 1 as a platform to begin that argument, message me or leave a comment with suggestion of terms and we will come to some agreement. My Intention will be to demonstrate that it is a category error to classify Intelligent Design as a Scientific Theory. This debate is primarily philsophical. It is not intended to pertain to the perennial election-cycle legal controversy surrounding teaching Intelligent Design in school. The debate, therefore, will not focus on court rulings or legal testimony, but rather philosophy of science; particularly a discussion of what science is and how it is practiced. By engaging in this debate, Con is at least implicitly accepting the position "Intelligent Design is a Valid Scientific Theory. " Dicussions related to the burden of proof for this debate will be resolved depending on whether Con wants to initiate the debate or to defend against opening argument. DEBATE STRUCTUREAs stated above the debate will be 2 rounds of argumentation and 1 for conclusion. If terms are settled and Con wishes to begin with opening arguments in Round 1, I would ask that she/he cede the final round of argumentation (round 4) so that we both have equal time in the ring, so to speak. Otherwise, I will begin with my opening argument in Round 2 and we will be off to the races.
Watching people walk/run into things is more often than not, funny.

---Definitions: (so this debate is not about semantics...) watching - to look at; observe http://www.merriam-webster.com... people - human beings http://www.merriam-webster.com... into - to a position of contact with; against http://www.merriam-webster.com... things - an inanimate object distinguished from a living being http://www.merriam-webster.com... more often than not - (more than 50% of the time) funny - affording light mirth and laughter http://www.merriam-webster.com... I stand in resolution that when someone walks/runs into something, the action is funny. My opponent will be a party pooper, and argue that this action is not funny. My argument is simple: Watching people walk/run into things is funny. I just love it- it's just so unexpected and wonderful. Just about everyone loves it when people walk into walls, transparent slider doors, etc. The victim usually gets a good laugh at their own misfortune too. My opponent will probably argue something like: "What if someone is running on a mountain, runs into a tree, falls down the mountain, dies and no one is around to see it and there are no video cameras around. In this case, running into things is definitely not funny." 1) This does not usually happen. 2) I chuckled while writing that scenario, so it is obviously still funny. The two YouTube videos show the funniness of people walking/running into things. I was afforded light mirth and laughter from watching the videos. Of course, witnessing the events in real life is even funnier. Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate, I look forward to your rebuttal. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Watching people walk/run into things is more often than not, funny.

First off, are we talking all age ranges? Because I'm pretty sure seeing a little kid walk/run into a wall or stationary object isn't too funny. I myself have laughed at people who have walked into walls, chairs. doors. But i also knew these people, so, seeing them do it was either expected or their reaction was funny. Not the event itself. Unless you were talking about the reaction and/or if you may know the person. I'm not sure how much time anyone has on their hands to sit around and see people just walk into things. Sure, it's a fairly common occurrence (i honestly can't say. I don't focus on that) and it's not so funny when you take the time to stop and think about it. Also, how often do you refer back to those times you've seen someone walk into a wall, chair, door, etc.? Maybe once.. twice if you for some odd reason are talking about walking into objects larger than yourself or a typical toy on the ground. Also, what if this person happens to have a disability, now you are laughing at a handicap which is rude right off the bat if i may say. But more so put yourself in that persons shoes, you laugh it off yourself as do most. But lets say you see other people laughing at you.. just as you'd laugh at another if you had witnessed it.. How are you feeling then. Not so happy and giggly. You're self image isn't so cool or collected anymore you've just walked into something that doesnt move on it's own! HAH! it's really not funny! I could say it's immature but I also think it's somewhat programmed into our logical thinking, we have comedies and shows that show stupid and "funny" behaivor all the time. If we see it we laugh. But take away everything you've seen as a kid or in movies. It's not as funny anymore is it. Act asthough you've never seen anything to tell you whats funny. Now a different emotion comes into play and what we would precieve as "funny" just is not there! Burdden of proof http://www.nizkor.org...
A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

I do see where you are coming from in saying that a "saved" person can sin in such a way as to be eternally lost, however all religions that stem off of Christianity also say that our God is a forgiving God. I believe that no matter the extent or severity of the sin, God will forgive you. Take the parable of the prodigal son. In this parable, the eldest son asks his father for his inheritance because he is bored of working on the farm. The father gives him his inheritance and blessing, and sends him on his way. The eldest son goes and squanders the money on drinks and women, and ends up living with the pigs. He one day decides to go back to his father and beg for work as a stable boy, for it is better than his life with the pigs. However, he is scared that his father will be mad for tarnishing his reputation and squandering his money. However, when the father sees the son, he tells his servants to slaughter the fatted calf, and prepare a feast, saying "my son was lost and now he is found!" This all demonstrates that God's love is great enough, that no matter what we do, he will accept us back if we just turn to him. For when a shepherd loses one sheep, he will leave the others to go find, thus is our God, the shepherd, and sinners are the lost sheep.
A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

I am arguing against the typical Baptist position of "once saved, always saved. I will define the terms: A saved person: one who is saved, not lost A Christian: synonym for "saved person" or child of God May sin: the possibility exists that this person may believe or commit acts contrary to God's law Eternally lost: eventually wind up in hell The historic Baptist position is that a child of God (once saved) cannot possibly ever be lost (always saved). Of course, I deny this. First round acceptance only. 5 rounds, 24 hr response. During each round after the 1st, each disputant is permitted to submit three questions which his peer is to answer in his next post. No new lines of argumentation permitted in the last round.
God

You did say that at one point 92% of the world thought the world was flat- however the human species has developed. The way scientists think the universe started was the big bang theory- however, that is only a theory which means you cannot disprove the credibility of god. Even if you stand on the side that there is no god, as I repeat, 92% of the world thinks there is a god so you would be going against more than the majority of the world.
God

At one point 92% of the world thought that the earth was flat, did not know that matter is made up of atoms, and thought that the sun revolved around the earth. Over time, the scientific community was able to slowly change general thought about those things to the point where everyone knows that those ideas were ridiculous. Science is currently proving that creationism is a myth and that evolution is the actual origin to human life. The discovery of the "god particle" is just the beginning of further discoveries that will disprove the existence of a god.
Atheism is more rational than Christianity

I"m new to the site as well, so it should be a good experience for both of us! I'll begin by following steps 1) and 2) of the outline provided. I. Introduction I am a Christian who has a layman's interest in philosophy. I am studying the natural sciences (particularly Biology) in undergraduate school and am very interested in both religion and science. II. Thesis I believe that Christianity is at least as rational (if not more rational) than the belief that atheism is true. III. Arguments It should be noted that Pro has the burden of proof in this debate, as Pro has made the assertion that atheism is more rational than Christianity. I will wait to see the arguments that Pro gives in favor of atheism being more rational than Christianity. I will address these points in my next response. Additionally, I will provide a few arguments as to why I believe that Christianity is at least as rational as atheism. I look forward to an exciting debate!
Atheism is more rational than Christianity

This is my first real debate using this site so it should be relatively informal by some of the veteran user's standards however that in no way discredits the topic of discussion. I am looking for anyone who is up to the debate challenge however someone who is knowledgeable on the phases of debate and how one conducts themself through this site and who could model that example would be greatly appreciated but is not necessary. A rough outline of the debate is: 1) Opening statements- including an introduction of yourself and some noteworthy qualities, your thesis, and what arguments you expect the other side to use. 2) First argument- Con side provides their first argument for their side. Try to keep it focused on one or two arguments at most, basically no gish galloping. 3) Rebuttal 1: Pro side (me) will rebut the opposing argument while being sure not to go into any new arguments. 4) Counterrebuttal 1: Con side is able to counter this rebuttal also making sure not to state any new arguments. 5) Same process reversed: i provide my first argument, con side rebuts, then i counterrebut 6) Q&A (OPTIONAL)- depending on how things are going we can have an optional Q and A where the con side asks 5 questions in a post and then the pro side responds, then vice versa. 7) Closing statements- address the debate, the opposing arguments, close any way you want to. Be sure once again not to post a new argument that wasn't addressed in the body of the debate.
Atheism is more rational than Christianity

Thanks Credo, sorry about that but at least i know for next time what to do. For this debate the definition of atheism i am using is: "the lack of belief in a god/deities." NOT the belief that there is no god. Though a person that holds that belief would also technically fall under the full definition the vast majority of atheists, myself included, simply lack belief as opposed to making the indefensible statement that no gods exist. In short, God in general is an unfalsifiable entity. We've no means of measuring or testing for god. We dont even know where to begin with going about testing the question of a gods existence. And this goes for all religions really. Based on this how can anyone claim to know that a god exists? or even simply believe one exists? The answer typically is belief on faith, which by definition is belief without evidence or in the face of evidence for the contrary. Faith by definition is unreasonable. It is unreasonable to claim knowledge about the unknowable. Extending this farther god is claimed to be beyond space and time by many. In reality we dont even know if having something beyond space and time is even possible or coherent. God is also attributed with the quality of omnipotence which is in itself paradoxical as illustrated through the question "can god create a rock so heavy even he cant lift it?". It is for these reasons that on the very fundamental level all gods, including the christian god of course, are illogical and why the default stance should be that such things are not real until proven real.
Atheism is more rational than Christianity

Hello Credo! I apologize for this but can you just copy and paste your argument above in response to this one so we keep even in the rounds? Thanks! Intro: I am a first year Law and Society major and have been an atheist for a couple years. I have been on alot of debate sites and media during that time. Thesis: Atheism is a far more rational stance on the question of the existence of god. I understand my burden in proving this however Con must also recognize that any assertions made on his side will carry their own burdens as well just as my additional assertions will. Expectations: i really dont know what arguments i will hear from the opposing side.