BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Belief in God is an intellectually valid standpoint

My opponents first statement about simple or complex things needing an explanation seems to be true within this universe. My point was two fold, one that he was trying to imply a designer which is usually done through complex things that have designers. He even used e coke bottle. The second point, I made is that all these "things" that we draw this conclusion from our parts of the universe. We are now trying to attribute that to the universe. Next, the universe is not "made" of matter, it is the sum of all matter and anti-matter that we know exists arranged in any order. Since if the universe had a beginning it was probably at a singularity, it is not the same. At that point we are not asking, how did someone rearrange that matter to make the universe, that is nonsensical, since once the matter existed our universe existed. We are asking how did the universe come to be ex-nihilo. That is the fallacy of equivocation, we are clearly talking about 2 different types of creation. In terms of other possibilities, we have a regress of universes or we could have an eternal motherverse of sorts. A never ending mother universe that gives birth to other universes. To say that infinity causes a problem for a universe is 1: to say that other universes would obey the same laws as our own,no reason for that and 2: to just blatantly ignore that the same problem would exist from god. His last argument definitely needs further clarification. It is clearly fallacious to state that the product of a cause must have the same attribute as the cause, so he needs to clarify how he gets from a eternal non-personal cause, to it must create eternal things. That is clearly nonsequitur. At this point we are not sure that the universe needs a cause, some scientists even state that it could have come out of "nothing" for clarification on this you can look up Lawrence Krauss. None the less even if we do accept that the universe has a cause. We can know nothing about this cause. We have no experience outside of the universe to draw conclusions about what anything outside the universe might be. So at best my opponent is doing a you can't explain where the universe came from therefore god. Historically this has gone quite poorly: Ancient man: Why does the sun rise? Other ancient man: Well a god must pull it up with a firey chariot, god is the only one strong enough and it must be personal to get it to move. Ancient man: Why do the tides come in? Other AM: God must be controlling them how else could they be so controlled, it must be a personal cause. Jumping to the god conclusion when we don't have answers has never been reasonable or intellectually valid. He has put forth an argument full of fallacies from composition, to equivocation, to argument from ignorance. This is not an intellectually valid position to hold. Where did the universe come from? other universe regress, god, motherverse, nothing, universe creating fairies.... I don't know, as an intellectual, the only thing we can do is withhold judgement until we get a answer that is proven with facts and evidence, not fallacious syllogisms.
Belief in God is an intellectually valid standpoint

Thanks to my opponent for the quick reply. Firstly, regardless of whether something is simple or complex, it requires an explanation for how it came to exist. The process through which a complex object forms may be lengthier then that which a simple object goes through, but both require a reason for existing. Secondly "the fallacy of composition". I see no reason why we can't compare the universe as a whole to an object in the universe. Objects are made of matter, so is the universe. Objects exist in space and time, so does the universe. Now I agree that beginning to exist out of nothing is completely different to beginning to exist out of preexisting matter. However I think that this is actually in the theist's favor. While it's possible that preexisting matter can be rearranged through a natural process to create a new object, it's absurd to think of something coming out of nothing through a natural process. Since the universe exists in space and time, is made up of matter and had a beginning I don't see why it can't be referred to as a whole. The problem I think you have with this is that you're thinking of the universe as meaning the whole of reality, when there's no reason to think that nothing else could exist. As for the universe having a beginning, this is held to be true by such a vast majority of scientists that I see no reason whatsoever to doubt it. If you dispute this point then the burden of proof is on you to prove it false. "The universe could have existed in another form before the big bang". If you hold this position then I would presume that you think that there has been an infinite regress of these universes? If that's the case then we get into some logical and mathematical problems. If there has been an infinite regress of universes then that means there has been an actual infinity of universes. Naturally you can't get a number that's bigger then infinity, correct? However, with each new universe that appears in this chain of universes, the number of universes that have existed increases by 1. Therefore, currently more universes have existed then had in the past, even though in the past an infinity of universes had existed. Naturally this is a logical contradiction. "inductively we just have no reason to believe it is a personal cause". I've already shown that a first cause is required. If this first cause is eternal and non personal, then anything that results from it, such as our universe, must also be eternal. In other words if the cause is eternal then the effect will be as well. However, if the first cause is a personal being, then it could decide to create something non eternal, such as our universe, at a given "point". Since we know that the universe is not eternal, it follows logically that the First Cause is personal.
Belief in God is an intellectually valid standpoint

I'm interested in knowing how these two arguments have been debunked, as I've yet to see any good counter arguments. For anyone unfamiliar, the Kalam cosmological argument goes as follows Premise 1: Anything that begins to exist has a reason for existing. For example it would be absurd to say that if you found a watch, that that watch had simply sprung into existence for no reason. Instead you would come to the conclusion that some person or process had caused the watch to come to exist, in this case a watchmaker. Premise 2: The universe had a beginning. All the scientific evidence is in favor of this. It has been proposed that the matter that was involved in the big bang came from another prior universe, but then we need an explanation for that universe, and an explanation for that explanation, and we are left with an infinite regress, which has been shown to be logically absurd. Premise 3: Therefore the universe has a reason for existing. A common objection is that when we talk about things having a reason we are talking about things inside the universe, and that we cannot apply this to the universe as a whole. However this isn't a reasonable objection. We know that the universe had a beginning. We do not even need physical laws to prove the universe has a cause, it's just logic. The universe could not have simply popped into existence for no reason, anymore then a unicorn could suddenly pop into existence in your living room, for absolutely no reason whatsoever! Therefore we can conclude that the universe has a reason for existing, and this reason we call the first cause. So what attributes would this first cause have? Firstly, of course, it would not itself have a cause or reason for existing. Since time came into existence with the big bang it would be timeless and therefore eternal. Since space and matter also came into existence at the big bang it would have to be immaterial. Now the only things we can imagine that are immaterial are uninbodied minds and abstract objects, for example numbers. Since abstract objects can't have any effect on anything, it would be reasonable to think that this first cause was a mind, or "spirit", and this spirit we call God. I look forward to hearing your objections to this argument.
Cats are better than dogs

The world goes to the dogs. Maybe now is the right time to decide what is more beneficial for us - as the citizens: To own a dog or to own a cat? The answer is quite simple ladies and gentlemen: Of course that we should own a cat since it is more beneficial for us! Are you wondering why am I claiming so? Read more. Definitions: "are better" = "their possession is more beneficial for their owners" Arguments: 1. Cats are better than dogs because it is much more likely to be killed by an average cat than by an average dog Imagine how many people are seriously injured or killed annually by the dogs. Children, owners of the dogs, random bystanders. On the other hand, I personally have never heard of anyone SERIOUSLY injured or killed by a cat. If keeping a cat as a pet is safer not only for you but for other people as well, it definitely means that it is more beneficial for you to keep a cat as a pet. Therefore, cats are (at least from this point of view) better than dogs. 2. Cats are better than dogs because owning an average cat doesn't cost as much as owning an average dog Firstly, we have to realize that cats usually live for a shorter time period. The oldest cat I have ever met in my life was 16, the oldest dog I have ever met was 25. Keeping a pet for a shorter time period means less money spent on food, vaccination etc. Secondly, average cats eat smaller amount of food than average dogs. Smaller amount of food means buying less pet food which means less money spent. Therefore, keeping a cat as a pet cost you less money than keeping a dog as a pet, therefore it is more beneficial for you to keep a cat than to keep a dog. 3. Cats are better than dogs because cats don't need that much care Everybody knows that dogs need to be washed. Need to be walked. That takes up time. Do you need to wash a cat? No. Do you need to walk a cat? Definitely not. Dozens of cats live just indoors, have never been outside and their life still can be regarded as "very good". Could a dog live just indoors? I don't think so. What is more, dogs are more social animals than cats. Than means that they want you - as their owner - to play with them. To talk to them. They are happy to go somewhere with you. The cats can sort of "live lives on their own". They can invent games themselves. They don't bother you when you obviously do not want to play with them. Therefore, cats as pets do not take up that much time. Therefore, owning a cat is more beneficial. Therefore, cats are better than dogs.
All things considered its best to let children play in trafic

I conceded it would be awesome if adults were allowed to do it with regulations in place. That is not a concession since we are discussing children. In closing we know that while it could improve reflexes, there are better ways to do this which are also safer. In addition we also know that this is murder. So the whole basis of this debate is illogical and I am no slapping myself in the face for taking it. Thank you to anyone who actually tolerated and read this from the start. You have my deepest condolences.
All things considered its best to let children play in trafic

Pro as not shown anything to show this is legal, and I have shown that it is by sources. As i stated prior to this there are far better ways to improves your reflexes that do not result in deathHowever if they did make this an olympic sport and made people sign papers acknowleding the danger. It would be entertaining. They could set an age requirement. That could be a better argument instead of let kids, die because they are mentally ill.
All things considered its best to let children play in trafic

Who does con think hes kidding? The debate is it should be allowed this means by law. Cops wont care f it was allowed. THey would carry the body out. The murder point is dumb and it should be regarded as legal. It means we change the law you knowI dont need a source saying it makes reflexes better. It obvious! duh if you throw a ball at someone they get better at catching it. Same with trafic! Sports wont do nearly as good. Look at autism rates! more sports didnt mean less autism. Some people takes them a lot to learn how to play a sport. Playing in trafic is natural.
All things considered its best to let children play in trafic

Point 1(1) This is illegal and would be considered pre meditated murderIf parents were to allow there kids to do this, and ones "reaction time" and you put it where not fast enough, the child would perish. When they ran an investigation on the matter, the cops would be aware that parents are allowing this to happen. Key word being allowed. Due to the available facts, it would be obvious to cops that this was intentional which resulted in the death of a child. Everyone is aware of the danger from this, and actually parents have went to jail for this very same thing. They also went for not paying attention to their child, which would be under child neglect. Due to the fact that this is intentional and not unintentional, it would be considered pre meditated murder. I will also ask con to cite his sources that show this would improve reflexs. A specific study done about the effects of children playing in traffic. Closing.There is no good to come from this. There are other way to improve reflexes among children that will not get them killed. Baseball, basketball, table tennis, tennis, hockey and so many others that I would not be able to name the allThis is illogical, illegal, and just all around wrong.http://www.wisegeek.com...
All things considered its best to let children play in trafic

My argument is good and simple.Children today no know how to be patient and many of them have autism making them slow. If we let kids play in traffic it increases their ability to wait, solve problems, timing and reaction skills. The stupid kids will die and the smart ones will rise through the ranks and become intelligent. There would be less autistic people. Autism has risen bc playing in trafic isnt acceptabe.I am good yes?
Media Violence

I'm for media violence because media violence is kinda what people need to let them know about the real world. Without media violence the media is just sweet and innocent and that doesn't really explain the real world. Media violence is real and tells the real truth about the world and the people in it. Though some media violence is put off as bad,some are good. The media violence puts people in check and tells them what they're doing wrong in a harsh way that way they will never do it again. So my though is that media violence actually helps people see the world as it is. The reality, the truth.
Grobbit is an Idiot

Hi, There, I just joined and came across this topic. I do not know anyone but I do see two sides of the same coin (Arrogance). One seems to be silly and the other serious. From what I gather, This site hosts a multitude of topics ranging from "the best ice cream is chocolate" to "Gun rights should be regulated. " You are both guilty of disrupting the nature of debate no matter who started it. One cannot claim the other to be an idiot without first acknowledging they are an idiot as well.
Demilitarization the Police Forces of America

To start off, I would like the term, "demilitarization. "Merriam-Webster: to remove weapons and military forces from (an area)Observation: If I prove that we shouldn't demilitarize the police force in America, I win this debate. Framework: Judge/Judges, you should vote on this debate by judging whether demilitarizing police forces in America will keep people safe. If I prove that it lessens peoples safety, you should vote Con. The jobs of police officers are to protect the people by enforcing the law. With better equipment they can enforce the law the law better. With the better equipment they can essentially save more lives, and protect more people which is obviously good. I would like to adress my opponent's points.1. That's is great. Now they can better control large-scale violent riots. a. That's also great. I didn't know it started that long ago. .. b. That's also great. It still will protect us better. c. That's also great. We can also count on the SWAT. d. That's also great. They are know more powerful than dangerous criminals. e. That's also great. If they are at an advantage, they are in a better position than the bad guys. i. That's also great. (Is that even a sentence? ?? ) They are more powerful then the baddies. ii. That's also great. They can help take criminals to justice. iii. That's also great. It doesn't waste excess militairy equipment and it gives them to police forces. After presenting my argument and "refuting" my opponents, I strongly urge a Con ballot.
Demilitarization the Police Forces of America

Yes we should demilitarize the police force in America. There are so many reasons why. Such as them being too over powered already. The police force you are familiar with today. Has completely changed since the 1970s. 1.The police are already too overpowered. a.The department of Homeland Security have been giving grants to the police since 2003 b.Most militarization today happens outside of the 1033 Program. Giving them new military-grade gear c.The police will always have a SWAT team. Larger departments already have several. d.Therefor as stating before "overpowered". e.The police already having, tanks, and other militarized weapons put them at an all-time advantage, which is not good. i.Tanks, and other tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircrafts and vehicles, firearms and ammunition measuring .50-caliber and larger, grenade launchers and bayonets. ii.Also bringing in attack dogs, tear gas, and other harmful materials. iii.(1033 was created by the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997 as part of the U.S. Government"s Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services (DLA) to transfer excess military equipment to civilian law enforcement agencies.)
Outsourcing

Outsourcing is a good thing for the U.S and its allies like japan .i will not argue that it creates unemployment. outsourcing in industry can gets chemical processes done more cheapely.iproving large scalle industry. allot of out sourcing goes into japan i vittal alli against U.S biggest economic enemy by given japan a economic push an if the products come from japan an vietnam the products are cheaper,and ussually enomploit citezens arent picki when it comes wares what will make an u.san allies vs china in salles of wares in the us .in the end us will gain a strong economic position inside and outside of the u.s. and the peopel how work in these factory get richer.this outsourcing will give a boost to the u.s influence.and even if some of the us citezens stay without jobs ,moving the economie to lower weighg workers has enabeld to that in the last 30 years 600.000 peopel have emergd from poverty.and that all thanks to outsourcing
Outsourcing

People are either for or against outsourcing. Some people are against outsourcing because it leads to a rise in unemployment, while some support it because they can get the same product at a lower price. An example of an industry wanting to outsource would be the technology industry. The technology industry may have an interest in outsourcing to Japan because technology is fairly large in Japan and it would be less expensive to produce in Japan than in the U.S.. Something that might prevent the American company or industry from outsourcing would be high tariffs. An example of this would be in Brazil. Brazil's high tariffs make it extremely costly to outsource. The United States should stop outsourcing because not only does it increase the rate of unemployment but it also takes away the pride of knowing that it was made in America. Outsourcing will hinder the American economy because by outsourcing, there is a rise in unemployment in the U.S. which leads to less spending. When people are spending less the government is receiving less and when the government is receiving less they start to borrow more. The more the government borrows, the more the government goes into debt.
In pursuit of immortality

In his previous debate, Pro argued immortality should be pursued over any other value ( https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Immortality-more-than-any-other-value/1/ ) Since the last debate has similar wording to this one, I will be refuting the claim that immortality should be pursued over any other value In mortal life, The way life is currently, There are people who want to do die. Life is already a nightmare for them, One of torment and anguish, For them, Immortality is a fate worse than death. Since immortality can create boundless suffering for many, It should not be regarded as the highest value. Instead of pursuing life for life's sake, Tormenting those who fear life, We should seek the alleviation of unneeded suffering as the highest value, Where we can achieve universal happiness, At least a state of contentment where everyone is okay and not living in perpetual torment. The highest value we should seek as a species is love, Not immortality. We should seek to make the quality of life improve for everyone overall over simply extending life indefinitely.
In pursuit of immortality

I would prefer to debate someone who does not believe in any afterlife, Since the existence of an afterlife would make this debate pointless in the fashion I intend. And would turn this into a debate about the existence of said afterlife rather than the debate that I want. So hey, What I'd like this debate to be about is the pursuit of being alive more than other pursuits so to speak. I'm also positing that immortality in the form of stopping cancer and aging is possible to discover in the future. It does not matter whether this is mind uploading, A serum, Cryogenics or what. There are many variations of immortality. If you have any clarifications you would like to make before accepting or making your own argument, Feel free to ask. If you accept this debate you accept debating with the "spirit" of what I intend by this argument. Voters are free to vote however they like without having to make some intricate argument to justify their vote, Although I would appreciate it if they are good sports and honest about it.
In pursuit of immortality

"Now to be fair I did not explicitly statethat this immortality made it impossible for a person to kill themself, Or impossible for people to kill each other. "Immortality, Which Pro argues for, By definition, Invalidates the ability for a person to be killed by themselves or another"In round 1 I argued that "The pursuit of being alive" ought to be valued more than other pursuits so to speak"Why should being alive for the sole purpose of being alive ought to be valued above all else? A purpose for life is far more vital to seek than to survive for survival's sake because it is what motivates us to live and makes life worth living, Not life for life's sake.