BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no god

Thanks for inviting me to a debate My self Debate0ts. And I m pleased to debate with u. In my way of definitions. God means: a being which holds the power of creation, Distruction, Which make the universe (in which we r living), Which control over life, Make justice and so on (etc. . ). Given mankind and all living beings to proper wishdom of life, Etc. . I think there is no end to define god. And why I believe in him, U see I m a agnostic. For very definitions of this word I believe the existence of other things (u, Living creatures, Even my self, Etc. . . )is due to G. O. D Big Bang is just an theory which not clearify certain things of itself. It has its own drawback. Which few I discuss here 1. It's violets first law of thermodynamics 2. It's only relate witn space expansion after big Bang Then what with time then it's no given clue to it. 3. If there is nothing at first then what force holding such massive amount of energy. (which creates big Bang) it clearify nothing of it. Yess I bit agree with that point that God is there to fill the knowledge gap. (But here u r accepting the existence of God). Opposite of ur idealistic And here I think god is a being (Living creature) which far superior and powerful which give a start to universe of ours. He holds the power of distruction and creations. Not to mention but I will. ( For arguments) The Bible, Quran, And many holy faith books etc. . Here proves that gods holds creation And distruction of universes. The books also tell that the he existed at first place (means he was all there before creation of universes). God gives living creatures so much they grown up into mankind. And mankind grow this much because he believes in some superior power up their which they believe in Even tough older people even today people still look at sky and feel there is a superiority complex which leads to gods. At very precious words of some I m saying here "If there is a hope then their is a way, The way shown by god but it's still lead by u" Here if we hope to some thing, There is some great we believe. And for beginning of living beings the believeness directly link to the god. I think god gives all things that we needs. But the necessity of all is 'hope'. And these r very good words u should Google it. "God gives hope. " My round stop here. Pls vps2000 give a reason why u think there is no god.
There is no god

We understand how the big bang works. We know that space and time came to be at the beginning of the Universe. Therefore, If there is a god, Then that god did not create the universe because it did not have time to create the universe. We know how planets are formed from stars exploding into supernovae, We understand how light is created from the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms and how these sustain life on Earth(Photosynthesis etc. . . ). Every explanation is completely natural. There have been plenty of cases(Flat Earth, Creationism, . . . ) where a religious explanation had to be let go for a better scientific one. Yet there has not been a single event in history where we had to let go of a scientific explanation for a better religious explanation. God has always been used to fill the knowledge gap whenever we did not know something about the universe. "What created the Earth? We don't know therefore God did it" "Oh a supernova created the planets. Well, What created the stars then. We don't know therefore god. Oh the big bang. Well what created the big bang? Dunno so it must be god". Every time a secret of the universe has been uncovered, The answer has never been "God did it" We came to be through the process of evolution, Consciousness/mind is a product of the brain, When we die, Our body decays and we cease to be. No god is required at any step. This thus leads to two possibilities: Either there is no god or there is a god but that god is useless, It does nothing. At most it might had a part in the starting process of the universe but then did nothing since. It has been so inactive that there is no noticeable difference between that god and a god that does not exist. So out of these possibilities, The simplest explanation is that there is no god. If you are a believer, Then I have 2 questions for you: Define the god/gods you believe in and give me the best reason/s for why you believe
Cannabis Sativa Enhances my Life

The argument is whether or not cannabis sativa (marijuana) enhances my health or is detrimental to my overall health. "Health" is pertaining to, but not restricted; mental, physical, social, ect. Consumption of cannabis is not restricted to smoking, but also includes vaporizing, edibles, drinks, ointments, ect. Referencing scientific links, or personal experience reports are not permissible if the link is a study formed by a government. Only studies performed outside government may be referenced. The debate will be based around my current lifestyle, which is outlined based upon my actual daily regimen. - A total of 4 grams of cannabis sativa is consumed a month, totaling $40. It is consumed after exercise, and the end of my laborious work shift on weekends only. Occasionally it is used to enhance recreational activities, such as playing guitar, creative thinking, and watching movies. - Cannabis is consumed in order to relax my stomach with being lactose intolerant, remove pain from sore muscles from exercise and work, sleep aid, and general relaxation and uniquely creative thinking. - I am not currently ensured for coverage of legal medicine costs, and have tried 4 separate prescription sleep aids with no positive long term effect. - I would also like to note, that I work 35 hours a week, and attend university with an above average grade point average. The cons objective is to prove that cannabis sativa is doing more harm than good to my personal health. This is my first debate on this website, and I thank everyone who reads and votes.
Cannabis Sativa Enhances my Life

Thank you for your reply. I understand you believe my argument to be invalid because I provided speculation. You also insist the burden of proof falls on me to prove Mary Jane made me feel better. ============ I accept "Mary Jane" for cannabis. I did not provide speculation, I gave examples you were not able to recognize. Now, I provide fact. See here: http://www.etfo.ca... And I can compare here: http://www.eqao.com... Also, in your first argument you said, "You probably do not remember your health pre-marijuana use because it destroys your memory.". I proved the ability for me to measure my aforementioned skills is possible from before to after I used cannabis. This is a important measurement of ones health. The proof you insist on is in front of you, for I am clearly literate. Now because you did not first define "health", I have chosen to. Due to this, my proof is that I am clearly literate. Literacy is a form of mental ability, as is reading and comprehension; the list goes on however problem solving is another one, which is what I'm doing right now debating you. Looking forward to your reply.
Cannabis Sativa Enhances my Life

I understand your argument to be that I probably cannot remember my previous health before using marijuana, and therefore cannot give a fair comparison to my health after having used marijuana. I accept the use of "probably", for it is a vague statistical statement, but clear that chances are greater than lesser. ============ I reject your claim, and bring to light that because I am a Canadian citizen, having grown up in a Canadian school system, there have been several government issued mandatory tests given to me through several years of my life. These tests took place years before my use with cannabis, and afterward. Because of this, I have the information to do a comparative analysis on my cognitive ability through different stages in my life. Due to the fact that today, my reading/comprehension, aptitude, spatial ability, fitness, and general cognitive ability test results are not only remembered by me, but assuredly in sync with my ability now, or even less when contrasted against my current ability. Even if I could not remember, the information is available to me in order to remember. Therefore I can remember, thus my point of being worst or better is irrelevant but a deterrent to your next round.
School Uniforms

I will now begin to make an argument, and hope my opponent does not forfeit, like people usually do. I shall begin by refuting all points given thus far, then I shall procede to my main contentions. REFUTATIONS " One, they take a way personality. " This is a false statement, and an overused one at that. Showing your personality can been done in various different ways, clothing isn't the only one. In fact, various kids don't even try to show their personality through clothing. Most kids do it by their skills in school, such as sports and art. Having uniforms would take away only 1 very rare possibility to express yourself, out of the many other ways. "Two, everyone would be in the same colors. "Is there something wrong with people wearing the same colors? If anything, it represents unity, something many school lack these days. "And three, there would be no entire student body that would be jumping and partying for uniforms. " No entire student body supports math class, does that mean we ban it? Of course not! Regardless if students support or not, it benefits the school. Now for my arguments. I am treating this as a somewhat satire debate. First of all, it weakens bullying. Half of school girls get bullied due to appearance. With uniforms, this doesn't happen, because everyone has the same clothes. [1] Secondly, it prevents innapropriate clothing, but still has hot girls! Beautifull babes in school, without getting in trouble! Everyone wins! And lastly, children get more sleep not having to choose an outfit in the morning. Sleep is very important. [2] It improves your learning patterns, and is for your own well being. As you can see uniforms give us various benefits, and most imporantly HOT GIRLS! [1]. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[2]http://sleepfoundation.org...;
Jesus Christ loves gays equally as much as straights.

Everything you said before this paragraph I am about to quote reinforces what I stated. Specifically this sentence. "Now, your argument is that if homosexuals do not do homosexual acts, they are free of sin. While this is true, this causes them to lead an unhappy life." LucasTheLlamaYou straight out admit I am correct in this sentence. "While this is true, this causes them to lead an unhappy life. They will never have a partner they truly love if they abstain from such acts. If God really loved them, why would he cause them to suffer and choose between sinning and love?" LucasTheLlamaWhy does God let people starve to death? Why is there war, famine, plague, and death in the world? The answer is the lord works in mysterious ways. [0] I don't see non-practicing gays as any less happy than the average person. Thanks for debating. Source0. http://biblehub.com...
Jesus Christ loves gays equally as much as straights.

First, I just want to say that I am not Christian, but I grew up in a Christian family and I actively study religion. Next, all my arguments will be straight out of the Bible, and not the old testament. God does NOT love gay people equally. A perfect example is Romans 1:26-27 "For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error." This obviously describes homosexuals as full of error, unnatural, and homosexual acts as shameful. Now, your argument is that if homosexuals do not do homosexual acts, they are free of sin. While this is true, this causes them to lead an unhappy life. They will never have a partner they truly love if they abstain from such acts. If God really loved them, why would he cause them to suffer and choose between sinning and love?
Biblical Young Earth Creationism is scientifically probable. (Second Challenge)

Thank you for your resonse."The conclusion that my opponent's semi-contention draws is: "...the universe exists to serve human life." My refute counters this conclusion."That was not a comclusion I had reached; you have quoted me out of context.I did not state that as my conclusion."but it is possible that it came from RNA[1]). If one includes the DNA from the premise, the whole thing become circular. It can be boiled down to: If an intelligent mind made DNA, then intelligent mind made DNA. And since the argument is circular, it is begging the question, therefore making it illogical and thus not true."Using RNA as an explaination for DNA simply pushes the problem of how the "code/language" came into existance back a step. RNA also contains information like DNA does.My argument was not curcular reasoning, as my conclusion was not a premise. My argument is this:P1: If information exists, it is most logically explain by an iltelligent creator.P2: RNA/DNA contains information.C: Therefore RNA/DNA is most logically explained by an intelligent creator.If Con wishes to attack the truthfulness of my argument, he must disprove premise one by showing that informaiton is not most logically explained by an intelligent creator, or he msut disprove my second premsie by showing that RNA/DNA contains no information. I can prove right now my second premsie as true:(From Oxford Dictionary)Information:1. Facts provided or learned about something or someone.2. What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.DNA and RNA both fit the second definition of information, and therefore my second premise is true.My argument for my first premise was in my last post."Well, yes it has[2]. My opponent's counter-evidence is that neandathals had many similar traits. That's true; I don't deny it by any means. However, there are several distinct differences between homo sapiens sapiens* and homo neanterthalensis[3]. This makes it impossible for us to be the same species."May I be presented with these distinctions? Also, I would like to state this: The 3rd source Con used is Yahoo answers, and the poster on Yahoo did not psot sources. There is no reason I should treat that source as scientifically authoritative.Here is the most damaging fact to Darinian evolution: we have never observed a gene being created that never before existed. We have observed aniamls loosing genes over time, but never gaining new ones. If you don't believe me, reference just one example of new genes being created. Not transfered from one gene pool to another by humans, but actually naturally created having enver existed before.
Biblical Young Earth Creationism is scientifically probable. (Second Challenge)

My opponent responds to my semi-refute of his semi-contention by stating that: "I did not want to get very deep into that argument. .. " . While that's fine - and a deeper response may indeed be required to get further into that argument - until a counter-refute is provided, I will have to extend my semi-refute as a full refute. The conclusion that my opponent's semi-contention draws is: ". .. the universe exists to serve human life. " My refute counters this conclusion. Opponent's Contention 2: DNA and information. My opponent's contention can be drawn up as follows:P1: DNA is a language, a code [etc. .. ]P2: Every language, code [etc. .. ] has been formulated by an intelligent mind. C: Therefore, DNA was formulated by an intelligent mind. Well, allow me, first, to run down the difference between sound, true, and valid. Sound means that the conclusion(s) follow logically from the premise(s). True means that the premise(s) is correct. Valid means that the argument is both sound and true. For an argument to work, it must be valid. So, is it? Is the argument sound? Yes, I will accept that the argument is a sound argument. Is the argument true? No, I will not accept the argument to be true; allow me to show you why. Premise one I will accept to be true. I think to call DNA not a code or a language is completely accurate and I am sure that my opponent agrees. But premise two is not true. You see, the amazing to exception to premise two is DNA itself. (We do not know exactly how DNA came to be, but it is possible that it came from RNA[1]). If one includes the DNA from the premise, the whole thing become circular. It can be boiled down to: If an intelligent mind made DNA, then intelligent mind made DNA. And since the argument is circular, it is begging the question, therefore making it illogical and thus not true. If the argument is false; the argument is not valid. So, my opponent's second contention is refuted. Opponent's Note 1: Human evolution has not been scientifically proven. Well, yes it has[2]. My opponent's counter-evidence is that neandathals had many similar traits. That's true; I don't deny it by any means. However, there are several distinct differences between homo sapiens sapiens* and homo neanterthalensis[3]. This makes it impossible for us to be the same species. That's all I have to say for now; I will eagerly await my opponent's response(s)! *I just realised our current "form" is homo sapien sapien, not homo sapien. I would ask that we accept to change the rules to add the extra "sapien" for the sake of accuracy and clarity. Hopefully my opponent will accept this resolution. Source(s):[1]. http://science.discovery.com...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://answers.yahoo.com...
Biblical Young Earth Creationism is scientifically probable. (Second Challenge)

Thank you Con for your reply.The fine-tuning argument was actually my opening argument to this debate, and I called it an inconclusive argument. It does require a certain philosophical view on life in order to be seen as evidence for God's existence. That philosophical view is the same one presented by theology: the universe exists to serve human life. I did not want to get very deep into that argument for that very reason.The second argument I will post for God's existence is the existence of information. If one visited a new island that mankind never knew about, and they discovered a sign directing people to a building, the visitor can logically conclude that intelligent life existed at one point in the past on that island. He does not need to see the intelligent life to conclude this. In the same way, DNA is information. It is the instructions for a cell. Because information exists in large amounts, it is logical to conclude that an intelligence created that information at one point in time. A naturalistic approach to the origin of DNA would require a more complex model, and according to Occam's razor, the hypothesis with the least number of assumptions should be preferred until evidence can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not so. Because we have not yet replicated the creation of DNA, we cannot consider any hypothesis on the origin of DNA more scientifically valid than any other. Logically, an intelligent creator of DNA is much more probable. Therefore, it is more probable to say that DNA was created by an intelligence, either alien or supernatural. Because alien life creating DNA would require them to be a completely different form of life from what we have on Earth (that is, one without nucleic acids), a supernatural intelligence is more logical than an alien one. Thus, the most logical explanation for DNA is a supernatural creator.I would also like to state in this post that human evolution is not scientifically proven. For example, the "neanderthal" and "homo sapiens" may simply be separated only by phenotype and culture. For example, they had tools, language, social groups, and could fix broken bones (1). Their skeleton is essentially the same as humans, and even modern Homo sapiens have slightly differing skeletal shapes. Some people say that their brain was larger, but we never saw their brain, and therefore that is simply a hypothesis.Sources:(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Biblical Young Earth Creationism is scientifically probable. (Second Challenge)

My opponent starts by accepting the rules, although he changes the BoP agreed upon. My opponent's burden of proof is that:BYEC is scientifically probable. However, my opponent changed this:"It will be my goal to display that it is scientifically possible". This is not my opponent's burden. My opponent's burden is to show how it is probable, not possible. He accepted this by joining the debate. It may seem minor, but that change could have led to semantics and a large burden loss. Now that's cleared up; I will continue. Opponent's (Semi) Contention 1: "An intelligent creator of the Universe is probable". My opponent gives what I would call a semi-contention for this. He makes a deduction, but doesn't mention a conclusion, instead stating: "I will present this other information in my future arguments. "While that is fine, it makes it difficult for me to respond, because I cannot be sure what my opponent's conclusion would be. As such, I will post a refute in advance based on what I think my opponent will put forward this round. I think it will be that:Due to all of the laws that have to be as they are - change them by just a little and life wouldn't exist - it is irrational to assume that the Universe wasn't tuned by an intelligent tuner for life. (Evidence for gravity, temperature for water etc. .. ) Well, if that will be the argument's conclusion; I will respond as follows:Three points can be made on this argument. The first is that life is nothing important to the Universe. Sure, what life has achieved can be pretty amazing, however what we have done to our own planet is a nice example of how damaging it can be, too. If anything, life as intelligent as ours is very bad to the Universe. Second, while life arousing from certain chance variables - things that are unlikely happen all the time. There's almost always someone who won the lottery, or stopped a crime because s/he just happened to be there at the time. So life arousing as an unlikely even is actually irrelevant. Lastly, the Universe is, by itself, not fine tuned for life at all. Without water, there can be no life[1], and only a few planets have conditions for life[2] by being in the so called Goldilocks zone - making the Universe very hostile to life. Even here on Earth, for example, it is very hard for life to exist in the Arctic and on volcanic slopes. The argument from fine-tuning is felled, surely, by these three points:a) Life is nothing important; if anything [intelligent] life is very bad. b) The improbability of life is irrelevant. c) The sheer levels of hostile-to-life-environments contradicts the argument and thus nullifies it. Of course, I don't know if that will be my opponent's conclusion; but I'm having an educated guess! Love guessing! So, until my opponent presents his conclusion to his argument; I can and will say no more! I eagerly await my opponent's response(s)! Source(s):[1]. http://www.howstuffworks.com...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...