BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Athiest's Are Illogical

My opponent makes some compelling arguments. I will refute them to the best of my ability. The Kalam cosmological argument. 1. The universe itself is infinite and the Big Bang was only the beginning of one of many eternally recurring cycles. In this case, Premise 2 of your syllogism is refuted. 2. The chain of cause and effect is infinite and stretches back to before the Big Bang, with there being no “first cause.” This was the classical argument against the Kalam cosmological argument. The rebuttal for it, is that there cannot be an infinite amount of causes, because nothing we know of today is infinite. (As I explained earlier, not even the universe)Pascal's WagerPascal’s Wager is one big appeal to emotion and in no way can be construed as evidence for the truth of theism. The consequences, positive or negative, of holding a certain belief have absolutely no bearing on the truth of that belief. The only valid reason, logically speaking, for holding a belief is that belief’s truth. The theist who believes in God based on Pascal’s Wager has succumbed to the fallacy of appeal to emotion and is illogical.Although, I will agree that Pascal's Wager does appeal to emotion, it is not really designed to prove the truth for theism. It is built on the idea that it is more logical to be a Christian because you benefit more. But, just because it appeals to emotion does not necessarily make it any less true. It does not prove God's existence, but if you weigh the pros and cons of each idea, Christianity wins. Its more of an argument to say that it would be illogical to be an atheist. Leibniz's Argument This is just another version of Kalam and my refutation above applies here as well.Actually, this is not just another version of Kalam's argument. This actually helps to prove that the universe actually has a purpose. Kalam's argument is an argument based on an initial push; a first push. Leibniz's argument explains that, since everything has a purpose, then the universe must have a purpose. There must have been something to give the universe a purpose, such as a deity or designer. Jesus's Nature Christians believe that Jesus was both man and God.All men are mortal.God is immortal. Christians believe that Jesus was mortal and immortal.Actually, Christians do not believe that Jesus was both man and God. They believe he was a man, who was sent by God, who never sinned, and through the help of God, was able to rise from the grave. This argument does not really prove anything because it rests on the premise that Jesus was a contradiction. The Bible says God exists.Everything the Bible says is true (because it comes from God).God exists.Well, now I will not deny that many (ignorant) Christians do use this idea, but it is not the argument for Christianity. Christianity, in itself, can be argued with facts rather than just the idea that the Bible says it happened. I'm really looking forward to where this debate goes. :)
Athiest's Are Illogical

Okay, atheists love to say that they live by logic and reason. Logic and reason are ways to determine whether an idea is to be considered credible or not. Let me explain how logic and reason actually goes against the idea of atheism. First off, The Kalām cosmological argument:Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;The universe has a beginning of its existence;Therefore:The universe has a cause of its existence.Basically what this means is that everything has a cause. Every cause has a cause, and so on. Since nothing 'real' (excluding ideas such as numbers i.e. Pi) in our universe can be infinite, there cannot be an infinite amount of causes. Therefore, there must have been a first cause; some kind of designer or deity.And no, the universe is not infinite. Scientists have discovered that the size of the universe is about 47.5 billion light years. For years, scientists had thought that the universe was constantly expanding because all planets, galaxies, stars, ect. were slowly moving away from each other. Here's the concept. Take a rubber band. Draw two dots right next to each other on the rubber band. Now stretch the band. Those two dots become farther away from each other. Its the same concept.Scientists watched the galaxies spread out, but recently, scientists have discovered that the speed in which all objects in the universe become farther apart, is slowing down, and will eventually stop. This proves that the universe is not infinite, which backs up Kalam's Argument. Since nothing 'real' is infinite, there is not an infinite amount of causes. There must have been a first cause. God. Secondly, Pascal's Wager "God is, or He is not" A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. You must wager. (It's not optional.) Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. Basically what this means is that it is more logical to be a Christian than it is to be atheist.Thirdly Leibniz's argument.Leibniz argues that everything in the world is contingent that it may or may not have existed. Something will not exist unless there is a reason for its existence. This rests on his premise that the actual world is the best possible world, as such we can account for everything in it as being there for a specific reason. But the universe as a whole, requires a further reason for existence, and this reason must be some form of deity or designer.Using logic and reason, one can concur that being an atheist is illogical.
Athiest's Are Illogical

I couldn't help but see your debate earlier about Christians being illogical. How I agree that some Christians may be illogical (including the dude you were arguing with) this is not always the case. (Just wanting to make a point that not all Christians use irrelevant Bible verses to support their claims lol. We are represented terribly.)I would first like to start off by saying that I am a Christian. My argument will be that Atheists are illogical and that Theism is a much more logical conclusion. First round acceptance. Hope you will accept. :)
Why Islam is truth not Christianity

This debate looked at whether Islam or Christianity is Truth. Considering the grounds of the question, the debate assumed that religious works were valid and that God exists. We focused upon the distinctions between Islam and Christianity in an effort to see which of the two is more true to scripture. By the nature of the religious works and the history of each religion, the Torah (Old Testament) and Gospels were assumed to be factual and reliable because these scripts are sacred to both Christians and Muslims. The Quran, because it is only considered sacred by Islam, was subject to scrutiny as part of the comparison between the religions. Though the two religions share much of the same scripture and history, I focused upon the following points: In Christianity, Jesus and God are the same character but in different form. In Islam, Jesus was only a man. ---This has two distinct problems. First, the Quran, in saying Jesus was merely a man, contradicts theological tradition (plurality of God), contradicts the Torah, contradicts the Gospels, and contradicts itself. Second, the claim that Jesus was not God creates a paradox of a) man can only be punished for his own sin and b) man can only sin because he was designed thusly. Jewish and Christian theology claims that God is a pluralistic entity. Islam claims this is untrue. ---This distinction is lest doctrinal and more scholarly, but does show a divide in how each religion seeks to understand the divine. Pluralistic representations of a single entity can more accurately capture the nuances of the personality and various traits and highlight aspects otherwise overlooked. Islam, by lacking this, lacks a holistic representation of the abstract divine. Christianity emphasizes peace, Islam emphasizes peace towards Muslims and violence to others. ---When scriptures moved from the Torah to the Gospels, the message of God became one of peace, love, and tolerance towards all people. When it moved on to the Quran, it reverted back to the violence of the Israelite clans. The Quran holds Jesus as the messiah, but throws out his messages of peace. Christianity and the Gospels claim that Jesus died on the cross and was raised from the dead. The Quran states that Jesus was raised to heaven and that another person was killed in his place. ---This difference raises two questions. 1) Why would the Gospels contain the wrong information, especially if they are considered sacred texts? 2) If God raised Jesus to heaven, why would he cause another man to die in Jesus' place rather than just skipping the crucifixion story all together? With these unanswered questions, it seems clear that if either of the religions is truth it would have to be Christianity.
Why Islam is truth not Christianity

Again I will say you are interpreting something you know nothing about for example the Quran does not use jesus in a special way of the term word. Infact that verse your reciting about jesus from the Quran has nothing to do with what your saying. What it actually is talking about is it is talking about jesus when the jews were going to nail him on the cross jesus during his passion cried out to god beging god to save him from the death of the cross. Actually in hebrews it tells a lot more better about Jesus prayer in the garden asking god to save him from the death on a cross and god says in hebrews that god accepted jesus prayer.so god saved him from going through such death. So that chapter of quran your mentioning is actually talking about that scence when the jews wanted to put him on the cross jesus asked god to save him from such torture so god accepted and took him to hevean before the jews could get a hold of him. Actually your own gospels admit that jesus never wanted to die on the cross. So that is actually what that verse from Quran is talking about that jesus will go to paradise withoutout dieng on a cross just to wait till Jesus has to come again a second time to defeat the anti messiah. 2nd the verses of Quran your mentioning where in uses god as plural its not actually the way you are interpreting. In Arabic Aramaic hebrew swahili punjabi and many other eastern languages the term us we our those words in Quran it is actually not plural. Those terms in Quran are singular they actually give god higher respect majesty and honor. In arabic hebrew Aramaic to use god using singular such as I or me put god in terms as a servant a normal person. We or us shows divinity and majesty. 3rdly again don't come to conclusions about stuff you know nothing about I can see your lossing the debate because your getting angry plus again you have not answered my questions such as why didn't any prophet before Jesus ever believed god had a son or daughter? Again abraham adam jacob Isaac and so on never heard or believed god had a son or a redemer was going to save them from there sins because also that Christian belief of original sin never existed in Judaism actually in the torah it says the complete opposite. It says no son shall bear the sins of the father.
Why Islam is truth not Christianity

You have made a lot of errors about what the Quran says about jesus being the word. First of all all prophets are the word of god. Yes for proof ask a scholar in Judaism about what I'm saying too because both Judaism and islam will tell you that words such as word of god or god with us does not mean in any way that person being god. In fact when jesus being called the word of god or god with us even the title son of god it basically means a prophet that is all it means. Also to mention jesus never called himself divine you will never find that in the gospels jesus called himself divine. Also not one prophet before jesus ever believed or acceptedthat god had a son or any partner not one prophet of old ever accepted god being a triune god. This was all a paul teaching. But also to mention I believe in Philipians paul says jesus being god but yet he never claimed to be god something to think about. Here in this verse of paul paul admits that first he believes jesus is god second he is aware that jesus never claimed god and third he is trying to figure out why jesus doesn't claim divinity. And again do not translate the Quran unless you understand arabic because what your saying is false. The Quran in Arabic calls jesus a prophet one speaking for god not a god
Why Islam is truth not Christianity

As a Muslim my job here is to teach truth and I am a convert from quite a different denominations of Christianity to islam I want to express a truth here. In Deuteronomy 18:18-God tells moses that he (god) will send a prophet like moses. Lets look at some facts here. Christianity says this prophet to come was jesus, but in reality jesus and moses were nothing alike. But lets see about Muhammad Moses and Muhammad were both accepted by there people as prophets, they both had parents, they both gave laws, they both had children, they both died natural deaths, they bother were like rulers or judges and so on. As I said before Deuteronomy 18:18 says a prophet like moses will come after him. jesus was nothing like moses but Muhammad was a lot probably completely like moses. Also lets look at another fact here Deuteronomy 18:18 also says the prophet like moses will be of the brethren of the children of Israel jesus was not there brethren he was of their people tribe. The brethren of the children of Israel where the Ishmaelites which Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmaelites.
Continue The story

He seemed really angry and began chasing me. Maybe because he now had tentacles instead of arms. But who wouldn't want tentacles instead of arms?They are way more useful and no one would make fun of him,because everyone transformed into weird things anyways. While running from him i screamed "What is wrong Mr.Rumplestilskin?!",he started to make weird noises with his mouth,gills or whatever that thing in his face was and looked even more angry. He chased me until i found an abandoned house.I entered it to hide and found the thing that changed my life. I didn't believe it was right in front of me!
Continue The story

There was a loud zap. As I looked around, I saw that everyone looked exactly like me! "OH MY GOSH!" I looked around for the Rumplestiltskin dude, but everyone looked exactly the same so I just shouted "Thanks Mr Rumplestilskin dude! You're my hero! Now that everyone looks like me no one will make fun of me!" Then, everyone but me started disappearing and appearing with different animal body parts.
Continue The story

"I want to try it!",i screamed,but Mr. Marco didn't understand me,so jumped over the students with my grasshopper legs and used my trunk to open the weird machine. Inside it there was a lot of colorful buttons,and a big red one with "Don't press" wrote on it in giant letters. If my trunk wasn't so big and if i wasn't so clumsy i probably wouldn't have accidentally pressed it.Mr.Marco screamed "DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING!",but it was too late.
Continue The story

I had begged my parents to have my trunk removed but they said I had to focus on my studies. That had been 5 years ago and I am still being ridiculed. One morning as I walked into the school gates, I notice all the students huddled around some sort of machine. On top of the machine was a man looking not unlike the illustrations of Rumplestiltskin in the books I had read only 278 times yesterday. The man then said through a microphone, "girls and boys, do you wish you could look sooo modern and cool?" "yes!" all the students scream. "Well I Marco Mcbean Mcsuperclean will help you!"
Continue The story

This is not really a debate. It's just a game for fun. I post a few sentences of a story and then you do and this goes on for the five rounds. Please try to make it as funny as possible(but not inappropriate). Here goes: I never fit in at school. Everyone would always whisper about me and snicker. I had once thought that maybe it was my yellow glowing eyes but soon dismissed the thought. A 1st grader had once told me that my cow ears and elephant trunk made me look funny but soon also dismissed the thought as she was too young to be telling the truth. (Continue The Story!)
Progressive Taxation

R1) InequalityAgain Con’s source concludes differently than he does stating “Economists can turn to empirical methods to estimate key parameters, but no amount of applied econometrics can bridge this philosophical divide. ”Con indicates we should ask “what reduces poverty” rather than inequality. In either case, progressive taxation is shown to reduce both. Whether the difference between “inequality”and “poverty” is semantics or not. Progressive taxation addresses both. C1) Progressive taxes and growthCon says “Kasmic is understating what the Tax Foundation report actually says. ”I accepted his endorsement of my understanding! Con asks “Why are flat taxes not fair? ”As stated in my first round“Lower income homes spend a higher percentage of their income on necessities like food, housing, andhealthcare. A person should primarily be taxed on their 'discretionary' income. ” For example:Lets say $10 of income is required to function above poverty and provide necessities like food etc. Now lets apply in society a flat tax at the 28% Con proposed. Kasmic: $30 -> 30% of income. 16k: $20 -> 20% of income Mikal: $40 -> 40% income JMK: $10 -> 10% income Kasmic: 30 * 0.28 = $8.4 in taxes 16k: 20 * 0.28 = $5.6 in taxes Mikal: 40 * 0.28 = $11.2 in taxes JMK: 10 * 0.28 = $2.8 in taxes Total: $28 100% of JMK’s income in needed to function at the poverty line, While Kasmic only uses 33% of his income on necessities. This places an unbalanced and heavy burden on those with lower incomes. While a flat tax appears to the layman as fair, it disproportionately is a burden on lower incomes. This is empirically obvious. This is why progressive taxation helps. When people are taxed increasingly on higher income, it allows those in lower brackets to spend their income on necessities and only really taxes the wealthy on discretionary income. This allows growth, and addresses poverty. Conclusion:Thanks to 16kadams for this debate. While he has much more experience debating economics, it is clear that Progressive taxation lessens this burden of taxes placed on the poor that can be debilitating and places it on those who will hardly if at all feel the burden. This causes inequality and poverty to shrink in society.
Progressive Taxation

http://www.youtube.com...Lyrics:Fresh from MoscowOver Volga came to comrades aidCity in despairAlmost crushed by the Fuhrer's armyOh, it's colder than HellHitler's forces advancingThe sound of the mortarsThe music of deathA grand symphonySee your friends fall hear themPray to the god your country deniesEvery man dies alone and when yourTime comes you will know that it's timeStalins fortress on fireIs this madness or HellThe sound of the mortarsThe music of deathWe're playing the devil's symphonyOur violins are guns conducted from HellOh StalingradMratnimiatAre you playing?Do you follow the conductors lead?No one knows youNo one cares about a single violinPlay the score of the damnedKnow the devil withinAccepted
Progressive Taxation

I am in favor of Progressive Taxation."A system based on a progressive tax collects tax revenue from individuals in proportion to their ability to pay. Citizens with higher earnings are taxed at a higher rate, while poorer people pay a lower percentage of their income in tax. In other words, the tax rate progresses from lower to higher. Progressive tax can beimplemented by selective taxation, tax credits or other adjustments, and it can also be modified by other factors in a nation's tax system, but most commonly the term refers to a tiered income tax that shifts more of the revenue burden onto the wealthy." (http://www.debate.org...)4 Rounds/72 Hours/10,000Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArguementsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Conclusion (no new arguements)Comment if interested.
There ought to be a government-mandated minimum wage.

This debate is part of Freeman's tournament, Round 2. I will be arguing against the minimum wage. Bob is a store owner who is looking to employ some workers for help with his store. He puts out job offers, and finds a person, Joe, willing to stack cans for him. Joe's ability to stack cans is worth about $6 per hour, so Bob offers him $5.50 per hour to do the job, and Joe accepts. However, the local beurocracy declares that there must be a minimum wage of $7 per hour. If Bob hires Joe, he will lose about $1 per hour, so he chooses not to, and instead stacks the cans himself, more slowly. Bob has to do more work that he'd rather not do, and Joe is now unemployed. Joe wishes he could work for $5.50 per hour, but he can't, because the government said so. With less employment and more inefficiency in the shop, the store's revenue decreases, and the government gets less money from taxes. Everybody loses. The minimum wage is clearly a negative force to be opposed. Good luck, brian!
"The more cashless our society becomes, The more our moral compass slips. "

Actually, If I'm not wrong, The whole debate wasn't kind of meant to be centered on if the cashless society encourages an authoritarian system or not, Or if it's just capable enough to harm people in the name of democratic well-being as those sections are pretty much broad for anyone to cover. Besides, The common man getting deluded by the politicians is not necessarily a fault of cashless society as you can see the capitalist ones (like Singapore, Canada, Japan ) provide you with your rights like freedom of speech, Freedom of living your life in your own way, Having your economic freedom, Ensuring your competency than the socialist ones like Venezuela, North Korea ( even if it call itself a 'Communist' one) and sometimes China. If you look into cashless countries like Japan, Canada, Australia, Sweden, UK - you would see that in those countries the whole democracy part works in a good way. And As for your fear part about having those few hands controlling the policies, It is obvious that the people elected those personnels to handle these facts as they have faith in them, Otherwise they wouldn't have even bother to elect the government. Even if you say those politicians actually manipulated the people to vote them, Then again, You still won't be able to guarantee that in cash-based societies the scenario would be different, As in those societies, The possibilities are much higher as the cash part remains intact (Examples. Indonesia, Argentina, India and many more). As for the moral part, According to Dr. De Waal, Human morality has two extra levels of sophistication that are not found in primate societies. Humans enforce their society's moral codes much more rigorously with rewards, Punishments and reputation building, Which easily demonstrates that how peoples ideas do help in building the moral codes. Besides, You really need to have a clear concept about the differences between economics and morality as these both are not suitable complementary to each other as sometimes the foundations of these things are pretty much contradicting. Also, The whole morality part differs from a person to person which is why it is hard to bind it with the absolute. As the whole economic part weren't the main factor on human learning to get selfish in primitive era, It is not rational to ask if an economic factor solely will able to degrade a moral chain or not? Thus, I believe, The cashless society won't play a key role in the slippings of a moral compass in a society