BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Exists

CON has played [b]Strawman Fallacy[/b] by assuming a general version of God and refuting it without even asking Pro's Definition of God. This collapses the very ethics of the Debate. The CON is supposed to refute Pro's Claims instead of refuting his own pre-conceived notions of God. Before going any further i would like to define my viewpoints, eventhough CON seems to be in his own rhythm and hasn't asked me to define God yet. God: I would define God as [b]Existence-Consciousness-Bliss(Sat-Chit-Ananda).[/b] (Note: I will use the term Atman for God, Sat for Existence, Chit for Consciousness and Ananda for Bliss in the future references ) [u]Atman is Sat[/u] Atman is Sat. That which exists in the past, present and future, which has no beginning, middle and end, which is unchanging, which is not conditioned in time, space and causation, which exists during Jagrat/Waking State, Svapna/Dreaming State and Sushupti/Deep Sleep, which is of the nature of one homogeneous essence is Sat. This is found in Atman. Sat only was prior to the evolution of this universe. [u]Atman is Chit[/u] Atman is the one Consciousness in all manifested forms. As gold remains gold alone, whether it is molded into coins, jewellery, idols or anything else, the universal Consciousness remains the same, no matter in which form it is manifested. Whatever exists here, whether moving or unmoving, all is supported by Consciousness. The basis (of the universe) is Consciousness. [u]Atman is Ananda[/u] Ananda is that bliss which is eternal, uncaused and unexcelled. It is the real nature of Atman. We experience the bliss of Atman every day in deep sleep. It is not mere absence of pain that we experience there. It is undoubtedly positive happiness, for we remember on waking up that we slept happily. This indicates the fact of the existence of bliss to Atman in that state. Sat, Chit and Ananda are one. Atman is partless and homogeneous. The three characteristics Sat, Chit and Ananda are not distinct from one another. The tree can be differentiated into branches, flowers, twigs, etc., for they are finite things limited to particular part, of the tree, but Atman has no parts. Sat is present wherever there are Chit and Ananda. Sat cannot be limited by another Sat for there are no two Sats, nor by Asat(Non-Existence) for Asat cannot exist. If it is said that Chit is different from Sat, then it will be Asat(Non-existent) like the horn of a hare. This sort of assumption will land you in a serious dilemma and confusion. All miseries come to a termination when one realises Atman. Therefore Atman must be an embodiment of bliss. Sat is Chit. Sat is Ananda also. Thus, i deem CON's arguments as irrelevant and unnecessary, since they pose no viable threat to the God suggested by me. Still i will address a few issues here: [quote]I would like to agree with CON on the idea that no external cause created the Universe, but would also like to add that "God didn't create God manifested as the Universe".[/quote] [b]Conclusion:[/b] When Existence itself is God , the question whether God exists? verily falls short. Sources: http://www.sivanandaonline.org...
God Exists

Although a frequently debated topic, yet can be analyzed in so many different angles. Firstly i would like to ask him, which God is he talking about? that is, Let Con define what he means by God, so that i can shape my arguments accordingly. After reading his Round 1 argument, i infer the following: 1) Con affirms his position straightaway by suggesting his version of God which sounds highly Personal and Theistic like the Biblical God YAHWEH and how it is improbable. 2) Con asks "How can a Sentient and Intelligent God create the world? " My Responses: 1) Personal Gods vary from religion to religion, sect to sect and hence the probability of their existence is very low. That however doesn't imply God doesn't exist. I will make further statements in this context, after he defines what he means by God. 2) I think this question is irrelevant, since the Topic is about Existence of God and is not a Creationism VS Evolution Debate. Speaking of Hitler and CON's friends, is again irrelevant for this debate. Waiting for Round #2 Regards, Ash
God Exists

Pro accepted the debate, meaning he accepts all definitions and does not seek to change them in any manner. Next, Pro's "definition" of God comes from no valid dictionary or other semantic source. Now, by the Russell's teapot analogy, the philosophical Burden of Proof is with Pro. Counter-RefutationsPro says "God is existence". This is a bare assertion, and needs to be demonstrated. Pro needs to prove God is existence to fulfill his BoP. Second, as I, however informally, provided the definition of God in Round 1, and Pro accepted the debate, he is subject to THOSE terms and definitions alone. I discard my initial arguments as my other arguments still stand to refute that definition. Advaita, Tao, et cetera are not forms of "God", they are spiritual forces. Now, let us see what the Wikipedia article says about Satcitananda. "Satcitananda is a description of the subjective experience of Brahman. " First, the Oxford Dictionary defines "exist" to mean "has objective reality or being. " [1] A subjective experience cannot call for existence. This is a subjective form of God, and does not make that God exist objectively and physically. Secondly, Pro's resolution rests on Satcitananda being God. Brahman is "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world. " [2] This is not God, but rather a spiritual force. As mentioned before, I defined God informally in Round 1. Pro has yet to prove that God is existence. Pro says that God is existence is a "logical deduction", whereas this is what he substantiates on this point:"Atman is Sat. That which exists in the past, present and future, which has no beginning, middle and end, which is unchanging, which is not conditioned in time, space and causation, which exists during Jagrat/Waking State, Svapna/Dreaming State and Sushupti/Deep Sleep, which is of the nature of one homogeneous essence is Sat. This is found in Atman. Sat only was prior to the evolution of this universe. " - where is the logical deduction in this? Pro is asserting things without any deduction whatsoever. Therefore, Pro has not fulfilled their BoP. I extend all my arguments. The resolution is negated.
God Exists

I would like to reproduce my response no.1 from Round #1 "1) Personal Gods vary from religion to religion, sect to sect and hence the probability of their existence is very low. That however doesn't imply God doesn't exist. I will make further statements in this context, after he defines what he means by God." As you can see i've clearly knocked out the concept of perosnal Gods in my respone #1. Also i've already said that i'll elaborate my position in Round #2 after he offers a more coherent definition. The reason i asked CON to define again in Round #2 is because his Round #1 appeared really INFORMAL. Have a Look, here's a part of his 1st round: "My friends don't believe in God - YOU CAN'T CHALLENGE MY BELIEF!" Lets check out his arguments One by One Argument: CON says my arguments are bare assertions Refutations : Dear CON, They are logical deductions and hence perfectly rational and valid. I would like ask CON a question, "Do YOU exist?" If he does then why deny Existence? Why deny GOD? For Existence is God. Even if he doesn't exist, its not my concern, Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore i am), I exist and thus there's Existence, There is God! Now please CON don't ask proof for Existence itself, that'd be really childish. I'm not gonna spend time on Consciousness and Bliss since the topic of this debate is about Existence. Argument: None of Pro's definitions are present in any viable semantic source (e.g. a dictionary), and, therefore, are not backed up. If these random definitions count, then I can define God as "anything impossible", and show that, by definition, God does not exist. Refutation: The God you presented is alike the Abrahamic God which is a Western Idea and hence you can find them in dictionary. The God I presented is based on Eastern Philosophies like Advaita, Tao etc. You cannot find them in dictionary because the terms equivalent to God/Divinity were in Native languages like Sanskrit, Mandarin etc. I'll provide the Wiki reference link in the source section, you can read from that. So this is not a definition tailored by me, but rather an authentic one which has been existing for centuries and are accepted by Religious and Philosophical Traditions. I extend my definition as i have justified its origins. Conclusion: As God is the very Ground of Existence, doubting whether God exists is like doubting our own existence, which any sane person will refuse to. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The loop quantum gravity is a better theory of quantum gravity than the strings theory

I should start off by stating that my opponent has the burden of proof in this debate. This means that he must prove this topic in so far as if X stands for the motion, he must show []X, while I need only show ~[]X which is the equivalent of <>~X. This means I only need to show possibly not X. Now my opponent has given two lines of analysis however he has failed to compare his analysis on the LQG theory with String Theory. As he had the BoP and he did not do this fundamental analysis I should win this debate here and now, I will still however supply some basic analysis. I will keep this brief because it is only one round, and my opponent never provides an argument. Now while LQG is not a bad theoretical postulate, it is not the best one. While the LQG does align with the theory of relativity, as does String Theory. So lets not talk about what they both can do: I want to discuss what string theory can do. By adding different dimensions, and postulating sub-atomic particles like gluons string theorists allow themselves to address the problems of Unification, and resolve them. Contrary to this LQG is indifferent to Unification, and this is a major weakness. So while string theory goes far and beyond to consider gravity LQG is limited to understanding quantum aspects of gravitational interaction. While I could present more, I do not feel the need to. This is one very important point which is addressed in great detail by String Theory but ignored completely by the Loop Quantum Gravity theory. Since the scope of String Theory is greater, and since String Theory can be proven beyond the LQG I hold that it is a better gravity theory than the LQG. Faithfully Yours, Ajab
The age of consent should not be lowered in every state.

The age of consent should be lowered in each state. Teens and kids are going to have sex regardless of these laws. If we send these teens to jail for having sex its like being punished for being a teen because they cant control there hormones. Since teens start having sex before the age of consent, then it should be lowered.shared BOPAge of consent-the age of consent is the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts.
On Balance, Individual Liberty is preferred over Individual Obedience

I maintain my arguments from round three, Also to be fair I will not add any more of an argument in this round as I do not wish to take advantage of my opponent"s loss of a round. I did want to clarify, Pro, in round one it say that in round 4 Con "waives." This means you want me not to present anything in round four? Is that correct? Just in case that is the intent I will summarize my argument here. The self-evident truth still stands that liberty comes from obedience and without obedience there is no liberty. While it is also evident that Obedience and liberty complement each other, without obedience, liberty does not exist. Therefore personal obedience is preferred if not superior to personal liberty. Even if that is not the case due to liberties reliance on Obedience, on balance, personal liberty cannot be preferred over personal obedience. Thanks for a great debate Pro!
On Balance, Individual Liberty is preferred over Individual Obedience

Note: For all those who play on semantics here, this debate resolution will be based upon the cost-profit analysis of the debate motion. Hence "on balance" Any attempts to use semantics to corrupt this debate motion ought to be castrated, well, metaphorically.Rnd. 1: AcceptanceRnd. 2: Debate BeginsRnd. 3: Debate/RebuttalsRnd. 4: Rebuttals/Counter-RebuttalsRnd. 5: Pro posts final argument, Con waivesHere:Liberty: lib·er·ty G2;libərtē/ noun1. the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. Obedience: o·be·di·ence !3;G2;bēdēəns/ noun compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another's authority. Preferred: pre·fer priG2;fər/ verb past tense: preferred; past participle: preferred 1. like (one thing or person) better than another or others; tend to choose.
Abortion is murder in the US

Abortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. Murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Law - the whole system or set of rules made by the government of a town, state, country, etc. US- United States of America Pros BOP Pro will automatically start his round after this in round 1 and pass in round 5 to even out the rounds. There will be no need for any more rounds as this debate is cut and dry. Pro claims abortion is murder in the US and defines murder by the unlawful act of killing someone else. I challenge him to this stance. Again he will begin immediately following this and pass in his final round to even out the rounds.
Food Irradiation

The foods are only exposed to controlled amounts of radiation, but it has been proven by many, even the FDA, that there is a loss of nutrients even from the slightest amount of radiation. Food irradiation also reduces food spoilage, but it does so by destroying many natural warning signs in the food. According to organicconsumers.org irradiation destroys the smells of the food and any mold that may grow, so it is impossible to tell when it actually is spoiled. Also EPA say that it "makes old food look fresh."
Food Irradiation

Food irradiation is the use of radiation to sterilize meat, produce and many other crops. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) these foods are only exposed to controlled amounts of radiation and therefore there is no danger or loss of nutrition when the food is eaten. In fact, food irradiation is very beneficial to the food because it has saved many people from dying of disease or food borne illnesses. According to the US Center for Disease Control, in 1999 before food was largely irradiated, there were 325,000 hospitalizations, 5,000 deaths, and 76 million illnesses. All of these were the byproduct of food borne illness and disease. Food irradiation has been able to increase trade from other countries and has helped reduce the amount of global food spoilage (UN Food and Agriculture Organization). The loss of nutrients is unlikely because the same amount of radiation used to sterilize the food is similar to the amount used in medical x-rays . Also there are three main different types of radiation that can be used on the food. The first is the electron beam, which is similar to the tubes of a TV that accelerate the electrons, this type of radiation CAN be turned off and on due to the fact that it contains NO radioactive material.
Food Irradiation

Food Irradiation is the radiation of food in order to remove things found in it such as bacteria. Food Irradiation should not be allowed ,however, because it takes away valuable nutrients and vitamins form the food. According to Foodcomm.com.uk 25% of vitamin E, which according to naturemade.com is important to your overall health, is lost when food is irradiated and even more is lost during cooking. Also 5-10% of Vitamin C, which is vital to bone development, can also be lost. Along with vitamins C and E according to organicconsumers.com 5-80% of all vitamins can be lost. Due to the large loss of vitamins irradiated food is extremely less healthy then normal food.
Food Irradiation

I can easily agree with the statement that you make about how these factory farms are unhealthy and such but there are very few diseases that are carried by the irradiated foods. What is wrong with a farmer irradiating food? Irradiation causes less disease and there are very few pesticides and such that the farmer has to use due to irradiation. Also, this point that you make about how the consumer is not benefiting from the irradiated food, what about the lives that were saved by the irradiated food. At the beginning of my first argument I brought up exactly this, the amount of lives that would have been saved by the irradiation of the foods. If you don't remember, I stated this -there were 325,000 hospitalizations, 5,000 deaths, and 76 million illnesses, all caused by food borne illness. This is the sort of thing that food irradiation would be able to change is the amount of lives saved by having disease/ illness free food. No, ' I wonder if I will get sick from eating that?' Just, wow this tastes good and I know im not going to die from eating it. This is why food irradiation is important to understand, it can save lives, keep out disease from the produce, and its no worse for you than eating regularly cooked food from your oven or stove.
Food Irradiation

Food irradiation may destroy some bacteria but it is only a band-aid solution to the real problem. According to organicconsumers.org food irradiation only covers up many food problems, not fix them. It says, "that the best way to prevent food-borne illnesses and deaths is to clean up the dirty, unsafe, and inhumane conditions at factory farms and slaughterhouses that are ultimately responsible for large-scale contamination." organicconsumers.org also says that, "irradiated fruits and vegetables benefit the packer and grocer, not the farmer or consumer. The consumer receives an inferior product that appears fresh, but has depleted vitamins and enzymes." Foodandwaterwatch.org also reiterates what I have previously said and what organicconsumer.org has said by stating that, "recent studies have shown that irradiating food may promote cancer development, cause genetic damage, and deplete vitamins. Simply put, irradiating food is a Band-Aid for the much larger problem of poor sanitation in slaughterhouses and processing plants, which causes food-borne illness."
Food Irradiation

To answer your question "Why take away nutrients, destroy warning signs, and create mutations when only HALF the job is done?" The main reason that food is irradiated is to destroy as many illnesses as possible, of course it is not going to kill all of the bacteria/ viruses. This is like asking why do people use the flu shots when it just adds that disease to your body. The main reason that they do stuff like that is to add a resistance to the body. So this means that irradiating the food isn't all that bad but it could be considered good for your body too because even leaving some of these viruses and colds that are left in the food will just help your body build resistance and be able to stand more of these illnesses and you could become less prone to health problems. Also the irradiation kills off the worst disease and such and so the only illnesses that would really be left in the food are the ones that we are exposed to on a daily basis anyways.
Food Irradiation

Irradiated food is fed to hospital patients because the radiation can destroy the specific bacteria that patient is vulnerable to, but in many cases the patients are fed normal food because the bacteria or illness they are vulnerable to is not even destroyed by the radiation. According to physics.isu.edu and uw.food-irradiation.engr.wisc.edu irradiated food is not completely sterilized as some bacteria are not destroyed. Not only does the radiation create "Super-Bugs," but it also doesn't even destroy all of the original bacteria. Why take away nutrients, destroy warning signs, and create mutations when only HALF the job is done? And that is only half of the bacteria, what about viruses? It has been proven by laleva.cc that irradiation is completely ineffective against viruses.
Food Irradiation

One question, why then, do they feed irradiated foods to hospital patients who are vulnerable to illness and disease? According to http://www.consumersinternational.org... this is exactly what happens, they feed these irradiated foods to these patients because of their susceptibility to these diseases that are easily carried by these other crops that have not been irradiated. Another point that would be that these radiolytic foods are not actually dangerous, here is a direct quote from Idaho State University " These substances, called "radio-lytic products", may sound mysterious, but they are not. They have been scrutinized by scientists in making safety assessments of irradiated foods. Any kind of treatment causes chemical changes in food. For instance, heat treatment, or cooking, produces chemicals that could be called "thermolytic products." Scientists find the changes in food created by irradiation minor to those created by cooking. The products created by cooking are so significant that consumers can smell and taste them, whereas only a chemist with extremely sensitive lab equipment may be able to detect radiolytic products. " Cooking the foods could be more of a problem than simply irradiating them.
Food Irradiation

No matter which of the three different types of food irradiation are used the radiation can lead to mutations. According to Livestrong.com and Foodomm.org the radiation can destroy some bacteria, but create more dangerous and resistant strands of bacteria commonly known as "Super-Bugs." These "Super-Bugs" become resistant to antibiotics and are a much bigger problem then the original bacteria that are destroyed through irradiation. Also according to physics.isu.edu the radiation an also create radiolytic products.
Food Irradiation

The food may lose nutrients from the radiation but there are three types of radiation that can be used. The one that I have already talked about, the electron beam, does not use any radiation at all. This type of radiation, according to the EPA, can also only penetrate shallowly into the produce being irradiated. This type of irradiation would 1. allow no nutrients to be lost due to radiation, and 2. keep the food from being old or put on display for too long. Also, would you rather take your chances with a terrible illness or would you rather have your food irradiated and avoid being in excessive unnecessary pain and possibly dying?