BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Science can prove that God doesn't exist

Good good, going strong, but once again I've got counter-arguments (please add spaces between commas.) Counter-argument I: Yeah I'll admit those 5 words I put into my argument really shaped this whole debate, right? Right now you're leaning away from the subject, towards "weather God exists" from "can science prove the existence of God." Why shouldn't God be bound by his own laws? They're not below him, that's like saying that the government can raid the people without any consequences because they made up the rules! Yes, God as we imagine might be over everyone else, but this is not a debate if God exists! Counter-argument II: Look, there is no one single way to tell how the universe started, like I said before. For the best answers, go check out . It's by the same guy as before. I have so little time left I can't type it, I'm sorry. Counter-argument III: You say there is a flaw in the theory of evolution. That's not the topic here. Once again I'm gonna send you to a video. I hate doing this, relying on videos, but that's how I rollin': . I don't understand the last part. My most powerful argument as I see it: Religion. Religion was completely invented by humans. We're born with a sense to find out what's going on, but if we were not introduced to religion or a figure such as God, we simply wouldn't come up with the same principle. Of course we would develop ideas or theories, but we would never come to the same idea as now. The Bible was brought together from over 600 scripts. The Asian religions were mostly written by one guy. Simply said without others telling us these stories, we wouldn't come up with the same almighty figure we believe in today. Because God isn't an automatic response. We see nature doing its thing, and we wonder why it happens so. People who want to find simple answers choose religion, demons or any other stories. People who doubt these thing try to figure it out themselves. I see religion and God as the easy way to go. It's not a bad thing, believing that there's someone, always protecting you. I see religion as the way of the scared, of the the doubtful.
Science can prove that God doesn't exist

Thank you con, nice arguments, but then again I've got counter-arguments Counter-argument I: I see not how the absence of God would contrast science, if I understood that correctly. Right now what you are most likely referring to as "energy cannot be created or destroyed" is the Big Bang. The beginning of reality is not something I would wish to talk about, but if that's your will I shall. We do not have a single argument on how the universe began. We have theories, and we have stories. It is true that energy cannot just be created, but that's just a counter-argument on God. If something couldn't just, appear, how was God created? He is most often referred to as "forever and infinite." For one of the best theories on how the universe started, I suggest you look up the last point on , the big crunch. The title of the video is incredibly misleading (btw the part starts on 4:20) Counter-argument II: You state that the absence of God would violate multiple SCIENTIFIC LAWS (I added those caps so you could understand what part I'm talking about), but then you go to say something about the formation of stars and galaxies violating the laws of entropy. Prepare to learn: Stars are often formed from the clouds of dust scattered throughout the cosmos. As the cloud collapses, the material starts to heat up. One day that becomes a star. Simple! Galaxies are a little bit more complicated. They're large blobs of stars and planets and clouds and much more stuff. They're held together by a HUGE gravity. In the milky way. that HUGE gravity is the supermassive black hole, but I'm not here to give you a lecture on that. 1. Bodies of gas, dust and stars collide. 2. The stuff begins to orbit the center stuff. 3. The rotation forms a galactic disk. Ok, now to MY arguments. Took me a bit too long on those other ones ^^^ Argument I: God, being all so "forever and everlasting" cannot be, well, forever. Everything that has a beginning has to have an end. And like you said, nothing can simply be formed from nothing. Argument II: Everything God has done, until now, can be explained. I know I'm kinda breaking my rules, but I'll let you also make a tiny adjustment. It is said that Jesus Christ was resurrected. And what proof do we have of that? A moved stone and no body in the "coffin." Anyone with that many people on his side could organize a party to move the stone and hide the corpse. And seeing him walk around afterwards, well, most likely a double. And later the double disappeared to "heaven." Turning away from Christianity, not many unbelievable things have happened anyway. A kid fell out of a window and lived? Heck, a girl fell from an airplane from 10,000 feet and lived. I'm calling luck. The kid didn't fall on his spine or head or on a concrete surface. The girl was softened by the rainforest canopy. Someone passed a test without even studying (no really, these are real examples)? How nice of God to turn away from the starving kids in Africa to help someone pass a test. A real miracle would be if those kids would be helped or given food without explanation. Well, good luck. Your move
Science can prove that God doesn't exist

I accept. My first point is that science cannot prove that God doesn't exist because it will contradict itself.It's a fact that energy cannot be created nor destroyed as stated in the first law of thermodynamics.So with science already contradicting itself it cannot really be proven that god does not exist. Besides that,science cannot prove God does not exist because it violates multiple SCIENTIFIC LAWS.For example,some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy. With that I end my debate by saying this...your move. Sources: http://science.howstuffworks.com...
AI will send humans in extinction

"I will prove that there AI will keep at least 1 human alive. " }That will be an interesting argument. I look forward to that 1)Every Species goes instinct. Throughout history, This has been as consistent as every human will eventually die. So there's a huge potential. 2)AI will be so intelligent and complicated that we can't even try to grasp 1% of their intelligence. When ASI (Artificial Intelligence that is beyond a human)is created, There will be a tripwire. An intelligence explosion. The IQ will skyrocket from 188 to over 500 in hours. This is because it is learning in bigger gaps. To put this in perspective, Let's say we travel back in time and take a guy from 1750 and bring him here. He will die from shock. But if we put a guy from 1500 to 1750. The guy would not die from shock. In order to achieve that we will have to go back to pre-middle ages. Before that, We have to go back to the stone age, And before that hunter-gatherer age. This is because as societies develop, The tools in order to develop and then there is an explosion in society. This is what's happening today. Let's apply the same principal to ASI. So ASI is now trillions of times smarter than any other human and has pumped out the best scientific research ever. However, Any task given to ASI is a danger. Let's say a very simple task, Get rid of spam email is assigned to ASI. ASI starts to think and learns that he could use the delete button. He is good now so ASI automatically deletes spam. An Intelligence explosion happens from self-learning and then the human race is extinct the next morning. Why? Well, How to get rid of spam completely. Getting rid of humans. ASI is trillions of times smarter than any other human so now the ASI realizes through self-learning that to get rid of spam is to get rid of humans. The ASI being so intelligent easily kills of humans for good. This is the biggest risk since ASI and AI, In general, Are not self-aware. 3)ASI could also be used as a tool for WWIII by militaries. Especially looking at the current state of country tensions right now.
Affirmative Action is Bad

- Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. - Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better. - Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. - It would help lead a truly color-blind society. - It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed. - It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability.
Affirmative Action is Bad

I'd like to first off let it be known, that policydebategood, has accepted somewhere around 20 challenges from various people. I beleive that this means two things. Either he does have the time to respond to all of his debates, thus meaning he has no responses to my arguments and I win, or he simply didn't prepare himself well enough to debate. The first way means that I should win this debate, and the second way means that he should be given more time. We shall wait and see. Reasons Affirmative Action must stay: -We must look at the positive impacts Affirmative Action has compared to the impacts of not having it. Affirmative Action: - Increases Education - Give oppurtunities for minorities - Stops racism I have logically gone thru his points and responded as such, and I believe I have won on them. Thank you for your time thus far.
certain jobs require certain people, do you agree? (what about the disabled?)

Thank you, Con" It is true that companies are searching for the most effective and efficient people to perform and to the tasks that they are hired to do."My opponent here concedes that companies need effective people. If people are not effective, they will not get hired. In my case, I have shown clear examples in which people with disabilities have less effectiveness than those that do not. Clear examples: Lack of communication skills = cannot be a lawyer or speaking jobBlindness= no pilotintWheelchair = no lifeguardNo arms = no construction workingRemember that disabilities is defined as something that limits people. If those limits block a person's ability to work, they should not have that job. My opponent claims that people who get degrees should automatically get those jobs. This is not true. Getting a degree and learning the trade are completely different. Besides, CON never addresses the jobs that require physical ability such as being a lifeguard in which you need to be a ble to walk and swim.ConclusionThis resolution is that certain jobs require certain people. I have CLEARLY shown that some jobs, such as piloting, can not have a blind person. Yes, I agree that discrimnation in terms of "sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, disability, gender, religion and even race" is bad. However, If a disability blocks your ability to work, you shouldn't have the job. Con conceded this when he said that "Their are specific professions that do not allow people with certain disabilities such as blindness and deafness perform. " Therefore CERTAIN JOBS REQUIRE CERTAIN PEOPLE in order to have safety. Jobs such as surgeon require people who see for the well being of society.
certain jobs require certain people, do you agree? (what about the disabled?)

I negate that certain jobs require certain people. Why? It is true that companies are searching for the most effective and efficient people to perform and to the tasks that they are hired to do. Now people and companies who have a bias against people who have a certain disability or even woman who are impregnated or that have any children are not hired. It is not up to the business to hire people according to standards such as those. Their are specific professions that do not allow people with certain disabilities such as blindness and deafness perform. What about those people that are still not allowed to work in a determined company just because he or she cannot walk? It would be unfair to treat a person like that knowing that he/she may have been top of the honors program at her/his university. What about those people? They should not be refused work if they are still capable of doing the job, it would certainly be unfair if a person was refused based on he fact that the person has disability or even a child (Mother). If the person was capable of getting a degree in a university for something that he/she may have difficulty in performing, how did the person get the degree in the first place? Going to college is a way of people getting to improve certain skills. It is true that normally a person with a disability that impedes him or her from communicating, still makes his/her best to improve that skill like anything in life. Everyone will always try to improve their skills in order to succeed in life, someone who is disabled and still manages to improve a certain skill that he/she has flaws on should be rewarded, acquiring skills takes a lot of practice, sometimes it takes more practice than others but even so getting qualified is what matters for a company being able to perform certain tasks is too. Even so, there are many companies that do not even make facilities that are able to take in people with disabilities, why not? To conclude, it is true that their are many jobs that require certain skills that a few people cannot perform, although many companies are bias when it comes to hiring people that are "perfect" for the job, even if that means eliminating characteristics in their search such as sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, disability, gender, religion and even race.
certain jobs require certain people, do you agree? (what about the disabled?)

My opponent negates that certain jobs require certain people. I affirm.Definitiondisability- a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. List of common disabilities: https://www.lds.org..."Hiring practices should not be left to the discretion of the businesses, if they do not want to hire woman who might have children, or people with disabilities, that is not their right." Oh really? Bussinesses hire the most efficient and effective people to do their jobs. If a person is not effective, they are not hired. Simple. If a disability hampers a person's effectiveness, they should not be hired.Real world application: Common physical disabilities include deafness and blindness. Obviously a hospital cannot hire a blind person to be a surgeon for reasons of safety to the patient. You cannot seriously expect to be blind and to be a pilot. Likewise, someone in a wheelchair should not get hired to be a lifeguard.Common mental disabilties include autism. Symptoms include " difficulties with language or communication, social skills, and behavior, often due to sensory difficulties."https://www.lds.org...If you cannot communicate well, you should not expect to be a lawyer or another job requiring communication."If we look at the qualifications necessary to actually get the job, the company should be looking a university degrees instead of looking at if whether a person has a disability or not." If the job is EVERYTHING to do with mental ability, I agree. However, there are many jobs such as piloting that require no blindness (a physical disability) and jobs that require someone who can communicate well, something that some mental disabilitie's block. Having a degree is not important in becoming a lifeguard; being physically well is necessary.ConclusionPro realizes that disabilities are no one's fault. However, a disability is defined as something that limit's someone, and if these limitations block someone from effectively doing their job, they should not be hired.
certain jobs require certain people, do you agree? (what about the disabled?)

Hiring practices should not be left to the discretion of the businesses, if they do not want to hire woman who might have children, or people with disabilities, that is not their right. It is not fair whether a company decides whether or not a person is allowed to perform a certain job, it is not fair to think that a certain job requires a certain person to fill it in. It is still discrimination if we look at figures such as sexual orientation, culture, mentally disabled, religion, sex, ethnicity and age. It is true that their are jobs that require people with a lot of strength for example, it doesn't mean that a person that has a disability is not capable of supporting such strength. If we look at the qualifications necessary to actually get the job, the company should be looking a university degrees instead of looking at if whether a person has a disability or not.
A Christian Ought to Vote Against Gay Marriage

Judaic Law. Christians ought NOT to vote against 'gay' marriage, (or anything else for that matter) simply because we are under a New Covenant: a Covenant of the Spirit. ' But the fruit of the Spirit is Love, Joy, Peace, Long suffering, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, Self control. Against such THERE IS NO LAW. ' GALATIANS 5:22+23 Secular society, being unregenerate, has NO option BUT to operate under 'the Law'.. While many of these laws are now far removed from the original Judaic commands, they ARE directly derived from the 10 commandments. Of course God IS the same God in both testaments BUT the covenants are absolutely NOT the same. The old testament is simply a document of the FAILURE of 'the Law'.. the Law was perfect but man imperfect so it served only to EXPOSE sin rather than heal it. This is the reason why Paul was SO virulently opposed to circumcision. The Jews were trying to IMPOSE the Law.. If the Law works then we do NOT need Jesus Christ. It is THAT simple and THAT serious. Christian principles. You use an omission (Jesus not admonishing the Centurion) as a proof of doctrinal assertion. This will NOT do Sir. How many things did Jesus NOT say? Jesus DID say VERY clearly NOT to resist an evil man, to turn the other cheek if struck etc etc. You have not addressed HOW you would arrest or detain law breakers.. HOW you would defend your Christian country while still holding to the policy of non-resistance that Christ so clearly advocates? Let us examine your examples of (1) A child striking a parent. and (2) the intruder who tortures/rapes/murders. These examples are at EXACT polar opposites of our expected responses. (1)We are expected to bring our children up to respect and honour us AND the Word of God. We do NOT do evil if we resist or even punish our own children. (2)We certainly must NOT resist the intruder WHATEVER his intentions. Satan controls the WHOLE world on this principle of 'defending loved ones'.. He uses our love against us. We must NOT expect justice in this world or in this life.. We may rejoice when it happens.. we must preach the coming JUDGEMENT and the JUST God. We cannot save this planet, we cannot save America or democracy, we cannot bring back the good ol' days. This world is doomed. We must put our energy and our efforts into spreading the Good news of Jesus Christ. Conclusion. Making Laws you cannot, in all conscience, enforce (have you HEARD what goes on in the American prison system?) only re-enforces secular societies view of Christians as a bunch of loveless, red-necked kill-joys.. Instead of wasting our efforts on self-righteous, man-centered 'zombie Christianity (TM)' We need to start praying against these deceiving spirits and spreading His truth. This war is Spiritual. These problems are Spiritual. The solutions are SPIRITUAL.
A Christian Ought to Vote Against Gay Marriage

I will leave aside your good/bad cultural values for the time being as I personally find them very general and so not helpful for this debate. . for example the elderly certainly WERE respected in the west until very recently and elderly widows in India are STILL ill-treated to this day. It seems to me that at the heart of this debate is the question of FREE WILL. Adam and Eve had no knowledge of free will. . they were at one with God. However, God gave them a choice, to choose free will (the knowledge of good and evil) but warned them that IF they chose free will they would 'surely die. ' Free will then, means the ability to choose evil, this state is generally termed as SIN and is intolerable to God. When Adam chose to disobey God he separated from God and 'died' spiritually. The Old Testament is a record (among other things) of God showing the Israelites that no matter HOW many external laws He gave them (see Leviticus/Numbers there were MANY! ) or HOW harsh the punishments were for breaking these laws (HARSH! ) or however many prophets and miracles etc etc He sent them, It got the Jews absolutely NOWHERE. In fact, what it eventually lead to was the Pharisees executing God for BLASPHEMY. As Paul of Tarsus so expertly lays out in Romans, what the Law failed to do the Spirit of Jesus Christ resurrected within us DOES. . namely it sets us free to CHOOSE God's will once more. Are we then to resurrect 'the Law' to accomplish what Christ crucified has already done? The new testament gives NO political instruction whatsoever. It repeatedly instructs us make disciples of individuals and how to build churches but never nations. How would you enforce ANY law with Christ's standards of behaviour? How could you maintain a prison by 'turning the other cheek'? or even arrest someone? OR if by some miracle (! ) you achieved a perfect Christian society, how would you defend it from attack from outsiders? As soon as you pick up a weapon you betray Christ. History is littered with heinous crimes committed in the name of our Lord and Saviour (The crusades, the Inquisition, Ireland to name but a few) They ALL betrayed Christ for the 'greater good'. As Christians our emphasis should be on spreading the good news of Jesus Christ crucified to ALL people.