BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Logic proves the existence of God

My argument is that logic does not prove the existence of God. The only way I got off topic is that I was talking about any god, and not the God of Christianity. I talked about how logic does not prove the existence of God. I did not have the burden of proof. My opponent had the full burden of proof, which was not met. He said logic proves God, and I said how logic does not prove God, and I at least attempted to show that there was no connection between the two. Logic is not made by someone, and one person's logic does not fit someone else's logic. Is logic subjective? Well for some, that answer has not been found. If God is not a subjective being, then God can not fit the description of logic. If I failed to prove my opponent wrong, it is because my opponent was not very clear. My opponent used the definition of logic and described god in the same way. If logic is given to us by God, then who gives us God? The arguments and the debate has many holes in it. My opponent tried to define God, with logic, but where did such a definition come from? How can you define something that has not been proven? Logic does not prove the existence of god. In no way did my opponent show how God is behind how logic works. If the LOGIC behind proving God exists is that someone had to create the rules of logic, then something must have created God, and we have a never ending cycle of who created who. I am sorry, but I thought I understood the question as well as the opening argument, but if what I have said doesn't support my claims, then this was very confusing topic.
Logic proves the existence of God

Once again, my opponent has neglected to stick to the topic. Instead of arguing logic, he suggests that logic doesn't even exist. I have shown that logic DOES exist. It's absolute. It's unchanging. It's immaterial. It is not dependent on matter, energy or motion. It has an existence separate from our physical universe. My opponent also brought religion into the debate again. This isn't about religion. It's about the properties of the laws of logic, and how a materialistic universe cannot account for them. Since it can't, I say that's a pretty strong argument for a Creator.
Logic proves the existence of God

I must have mixed up the way I have read it. I am still reading it that way, but since you have noted a mistake in my thinking, I will go with what I have from here. Can logic exist in a purely materialistic universe? Well, to answer that question is impossible. This is not a one side versus another. That question is impossible to answer. Can logic live without God? Using the bible as a source to describe God is not applicable. You can not simply go in to someone's autobiography and say whatever they say is true. This being the reason a college professor does not usually allow someone to use autobiographies in a research paper. And if God is real, and the bible is his word, then it is nothing more than a autobiography, or a flawed research paper. It is flawed because there is no other source. God has to be proven before we can go any step further in any claim you make. You can not say 'God is responsible for such and such and here is the proof' without proving that God is here in the first place. You simply can not do that. I can not go in to a supposedly haunted house, and say a ghost touched me without having solid evidence that ghosts exist. But lets pretend I never said that, and lets just go with what we have. Can logic exist without God? Well, you defined logic, and then you defined what god is. However, you have not proven God is real. Logic is not something that is tangible, and it is not something that is to be proven. I can address you to the Torah and they will say similar things about their dogma, as well as the Hindus dogma, as well as the dogmas of the ancient Greeks. They were all real, and the cause of everything. No, this is not a religious debate, however, before you jump in to an argument claiming something is responsible for something else, you must prove both things are of existence, and since God has not appeared in any scientific research essay that has been peer reviewed, then any logical thinking person must conclude that God has not been proven. Note: personal encounters prove nothing. People generally have personal encounters with things that are supposedly super natural, however, these encounters have been debunked, and have been proven to be caused by the subject's current setting. Again, not what this debate is about, but this debate is a step further than it should be. A God has to be proven. Also, it has to be proven that God has all those attributes that logic does. According to the bible, God does not have those attributes. We can all note that God has a change in heart in the new testament, seeing how he no longer requires a blood sacrifice, and if logic is unchanging, then God does not fit that description. You ought to not bring science in to this debate, as well. Science disproves many of the claims of the bible, and if you are going to use science as an argument, then you must disqualify the bible as a source because one contradicts the other on several notes. No, not all notes, but if two pieces of material have many contradictions to the other, then one must disqualify the other.
Logic proves the existence of God

Having said that, I'm at a loss as to what I should rebutt. Con seems to be confused about what this debate is about. It's not about religion. It's about whether or not the laws of logic can exist in a purely materialistic universe. His opening argument did not mention anything about how logic can exist without an intelligent creator. Hopefully, he will address this in his rebuttals. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Logic proves the existence of God

The Bible is not any more or less credible than the Qur'an, so (this is not a rebuttal to my opponent's argument, this is something I would have said if I argued first) saying that the bible talks about how God's attributes, appearance, power, existence etc. is not something that can ever be taken in to account when arguing about the existence of God or any god from any holy text for that matter. A holy text has to be proven credible in order to be taken in to account, just like I assume in this debate a source must be proven credible in order to be taken in to account. Let me also say that the vast majority of us are Christians due to Alexander the Great shoving it down everyone's throat. He forced it upon people, and killed them if they did not agree to it, so they taught it to their children as fact, and that traveled down the family trees for ages. I do not argue in this debate that there is no god. Although I personally believe that there is no god, that is not what this debate is about. This debate is about how logic proves God. I am assuming the God of the bible, but if I am wrong I hope my opponent corrects this. As it stands, I do not find in any way that logic does not prove a god exists (until my opponent tells me for sure this is about the god of the Bible, I am going to remain as neutral as possible regarding religions). I would like to say that, given the several hypothesis of other gods that have been for the most part debunked, the current hypothesis of a god or gods today are highly unlikely. The Greek gods, Egyptian gods and goddesses, Roman Gods and Goddesses were all as believable as any god or goddess we have today. Because so much is unexplained, we say God did it, however, at one point, people believed Zeus was responsible for lightning. The Greeks also believed exactly what today's Christians, Muslims, and Jews believe with their deity: the Greek God Chaos was nothingness in which everything came from. If logic is what proves a god exists, then can't someone just make up a god and say that logic proves that the god they made up is real?
Logic proves the existence of God

My goal for this debate is to argue the existence of God by arguing that logic cannot exist without Him. I'm not arguing for the existence of the Christian God, BTW. Just the concept of an all powerful being that created everything. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to prove me wrong. Burden of proof is shared equally. The best argument wins.Four rounds.Acceptance.Opening argument.Rebuttals.Closing argument.Good luck.
Southern Europe shoud stop with the Euro

Actually the US did not start as a single country but a confederation of states like the achean league and so forth. Money isn't everything Greece must keep the euro for now until it comes out of its economic pressure from the rebillion. Italy however is a rich country who could go back to the euro but will probably be the last to because they founded the EU. There is no proof for this just because they change thier currency. The euro is a very stable currency nothing like the dollar.
The Second Amendment Is Still Important And Should Not Be Repealed

First: I am fine with how gun control is now, we can debate whether or not gun control should be increased or decreased. Second: I believe the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the American population from a tyrannical government. Now that this is out of the way: I say that there is a need in society today to defend yourself from intruders and a tyrannical American Government. I also believe that the battle over gun control is actually gun owners vs non-gun owners. The informed vs. the ill-informed. Let us keep the debate friendly. What I believe I think is the best for society, as will my opponent.
Did life on earth originate on earth

As you mentioned in round one, a meteorite may have come without life, but with the necessary chemicals. This would still mean that life formed on earth. Another theory scientists have come up with is exactly that! Meteorites carried the organic molecules, the heat and the water needed for the process of life to begin. This theory suggests that life originated almost 4 billion years ago. Scientists have found fossil evidence that leads them to believe that algae-like microorganisms were firmly rooted on earth 3.7 billion years ago. I rest my case. Sources http://www.pbs.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.astrobio.net...
Did life on earth originate on earth

There is enough hydrogen and oxygen in the water and nitrogen from the geothermal vents in the bottom of the ocean to form life. Not only could life have formed undersea, the nucleotides needed to form RNA could have formed in the atmosphere, which had the necessary elements, though they may not have been very abundant. Nevertheless, the nucleotides formed a chain to form what is now known as RNA, which replicated and eventually formed a cell membrane. These cells evolved to have DNA and multicellularity evolved. Sources http://www.esrl.noaa.gov... http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Did life on earth originate on earth

The origin of life is UNDENIABLY extraterrestrial. The first piece of clear evidence is the chemical composition of the human body. Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen all have their origins elsewhere in the universe. My second argument deals mainly from the fact that life and Earth developed at two different times. Leading scientists believe that "life" (your simple prokaryotic organisms) was, in fact, brought by a meteor or other chunk of space rock. While this rock may not have been carrying life, it carried the heat and chemicals needed to synthesize life and, without it, life would not have developed. Sources http://www.astrobio.net... http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://www.dailygalaxy.com... http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
Did life on earth originate on earth

Life originated on earth and did not come from an extraterrestrial source. Three billion years ago, the young sun would have been 30% less luminous and the earth's atmosphere was thinner. this would mean that approximately the top 300 meters of the ocean would be frozen, blocking ultraviolet light from destroying the organic molecules. The geothermal ocean vents spewed the organic materials needed to make the first genetic material, or amino acid proteins. These then formed RNA. and from then on, unless there was climate change involved, the atmosphere or anything else outside of the water did not affect the process of life forming. Soon, the first prokaryotic cells had been formed from RNA and other proteins combining. The prokaryotic cells eventually evolved into eukaryotic cells and they evolved into multicellular organisms, which moved onto earth and evolved from there. Sources http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... http://people.chem.duke.edu... http://www.hawking.org.uk... http://eesc.columbia.edu...
I can solve four riddles in a row

If I do not solve it tell me why and how to find answer but even if I don't solve one just put others for fun.If I can't solve one = 7 point to conIf I solve all four = 7 point to meIf I give a fully valid answer but con has a different, equally valid answer we ignore this. One riddle per round (failure to abide = 7 point to pro)
New member debate: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Im not sure what my opponent is trying to say, all I could deliberate is that two wrongs dont make a right and that the U. S. shouldn't have dropped the bombs on citizens. In refutation of two wrongs dont make a right, I am merely saying that because Japan was killing so many people, the United States was morally obligated to stop Japan, and the best way to do that was to drop the bombs even if it resulted in the death of a couple hundred thousand citizens. My point of Utilitarianism goes uncontested.
New member debate: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

My opponent simply offered another option for America to do, negotiation. However, the negotiations between America and Japan before the bombs were dropped FAILED so, how could negotiation have solved the problem. And also, I thought I was trying to prove that dropping the bombs were morally right, which I have by saying, the Japanese had to be stopped because of all the innocent people they were killing and dropping the bombs was the best way to do that. Therefore, the dropping of bombs achieves morality by stopping the Japanese from killing millions of people a.k.a. utilitarianism- greatest good for the greatest number of people.
New member debate: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

In response to my argument about how the bombs were justified, my opponent says, "if you dont give us what we want we'll kill you." However, I don't entirely see how offering the Japanese a chance for peace is a bad thing...http://www.fallacyfiles.org...(I post a more grade-A soucre later).In fact Im for it. You leave my rebuts unbutted. In facts theres more then 3 options I will edit in boldThree options:1) Invasion of Japan2) Surrendering to the Japanese without cause and leaving the war. Even though they attacked the U.S. first without cause.3) Dropping the atomic bombs.4)Negotiate1) Invasion of Japan-as I already proved, this option isn't the right thing to do since it causes way too many casualties of military and NON-MILITARY personel.2) Surrendering/Leaving the war- this option isn't the right thing to do either since it was America's moral obligation to stop the Japanese expantion into the rest of Asia. For example, the Japanese slaughtered ten million people altogether and 6 million defenseless chinese out of that ten million. Therefore, it was America's moral obligation to stop the Japanese.No we did not. We could have to aid sooner, but we had other thing to do. We are not the big brother of the world.3) Dropping the bombs- this is the option that produces the fewest casualties as well as the surrender of the Japanese.4)negotiate would give the affect we wanted because the Japanese ruling class looked up to their emperor aas a god. Just as long the emperor kept his power, the war should've ended sooner.In fact, this is off topic. To win this debate, you must prove it was MORALLY wrong. You say the nukes were OK, but is that any excuse? The bombs killed people AFTER THE WAR. People who may have sued for peace, may have helped you in a land invasion.
New member debate: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

In response to my argument about how the bombs were justified, my opponent says, "if you dont give us what we want we'll kill you. " However, I don't entirely see how offering the Japanese a chance for peace is a bad thing. .. Three options: 1) Invasion of Japan 2) Surrendering to the Japanese without cause and leaving the war. Even though they attacked the U. S. first without cause. 3) Dropping the atomic bombs. 1) Invasion of Japan-as I already proved, this option isn't the right thing to do since it causes way too many casualties of military and NON-MILITARY personel. 2) Surrendering/Leaving the war- this option isn't the right thing to do either since it was America's moral obligation to stop the Japanese expantion into the rest of Asia. For example, the Japanese slaughtered ten million people altogether and 6 million defenseless chinese out of that ten million. Therefore, it was America's moral obligation to stop the Japanese. 3) Dropping the bombs- this is the option that produces the fewest casualties as well as the surrender of the Japanese. Unless my opponent can provide another option, I have proven that dropping the bombs was not only just, but it was the right thing to do.
New member debate: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

PRO--In response to my opponents argument against the first part of my case that basically says the bombs are justified if the U.S. properly warned the Japanese AS WELL AS OFFERING THEM A CHANCE TO STOP THE BOMBS FROM BEING DROPPED ON THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE by accepting the peace treaty. My opponent failed to recognize the capitalized part of my case which is the main reason why the actions are justified.I could go on about how Hiroshima and Nagasaki was like a "If you don't give us what we want we'll kill you.".Your attacking noncombatants.PRO---Also, my opponent says that the second part of my case which basically says that it would have saved many Japanese and American lives is not applicable to the topic by saying that it isn't just. This is true however it was addressing the second sentence of his first round post which says "One must prove it was the right thing to do." And it does, indeed prove that dropping the bombs was the right thing to do.That is not proof. You need to show there was NO other options. There still is many tactics that can work. Now PROVE IT.PRO----And finally, in response to my opponent's quotation, I will say that Leo Szilard is assuming American bias; however, true justice never contains bias of any kind.You think that? Without any examples? Do you want more?
New member debate: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

In response to my opponents argument against the first part of my case that basically says the bombs are justified if the U.S. properly warned the Japanese AS WELL AS OFFERING THEM A CHANCE TO STOP THE BOMBS FROM BEING DROPPED ON THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE by accepting the peace treaty. My opponent failed to recognize the capitalized part of my case which is the main reason why the actions are justified. Also, my opponent says that the second part of my case which basically says that it would have saved many Japanese and American lives is not applicable to the topic by saying that it isn't just. This is true however it was addressing the second sentence of his first round post which says "One must prove it was the right thing to do." And it does, indeed prove that dropping the bombs was the right thing to do. And finally, in response to my opponent's quotation, I will say that Leo Szilard is assuming American bias; however, true justice never contains bias of any kind.
New member debate: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

According to the defintion of Just, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were just because President Truman informed the Japanese of the atomic power of the United States and asked for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese. Because of this, the United States was warning the Japanese of its new found power, and appropriately gave the Japanese the opportunity to prevent the bombs from being dropped on them. Therefore, any casualties after the Japanese didnt accept the terms of peace, were justified since the U.S. properly warned the Japanese.So I can do anything to a person and if I warned them, its OK?If you're in a dark alley and someone is trying to kill you, but they warn you, is that alright? It still isn't alright.Dropping the bombs was also the right thing to do because it saved the lives of potentially millions of Japanese and Americans. Nearly every citizen of Japan, men, women and children were prepared to fight to the death for their country. Examples of this are the Kamikazees and the mass suicides performed by the Japanese if they knew they lost a battle or an island. It is said that an invasion of the main island of Japan would cost nearly 500,000 to 4,000,000 million deaths on the sides of both america and japan. (1) and (2)Now for this to stick, you'll need to prove there was nothing. But it still isn't just. A war crime is still a war crime. I dont thing this makes the bombs just.Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?" Dr. Leo Szilard
New member debate: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Just: Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair (google.com) According to the defintion of Just, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were just because President Truman informed the Japanese of the atomic power of the United States and asked for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese. Because of this, the United States was warning the Japanese of its new found power, and appropriately gave the Japanese the opportunity to prevent the bombs from being dropped on them. Therefore, any casualties after the Japanese didnt accept the terms of peace, were justified since the U.S. properly warned the Japanese. Dropping the bombs was also the right thing to do because it saved the lives of potentially millions of Japanese and Americans. Nearly every citizen of Japan, men, women and children were prepared to fight to the death for their country. Examples of this are the Kamikazees and the mass suicides performed by the Japanese if they knew they lost a battle or an island. It is said that an invasion of the main island of Japan would cost nearly 500,000 to 4,000,000 million deaths on the sides of both america and japan. (1) and (2) (1) www.atomcentral.com/hironaga.html (2) www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1708051/posts
Quick silver vs Flash and flash wins numb

Hello man and time to debate on who will win in a fight Flash or Quicksilver. Two top five heroes preparing for heat of battle. Flash is known as the ' fastest man alive' as showed in both comics and dc series. He has traveled at a high rate of the speed of light which is proven to be faster then the speed of sound and is capable to out run Quicksilver. Flash has ran very fast that he has ran through time (and yes its possible) How will Quicksilver be able to keep up? There is no way he could have been able to. As you show no proof and you post an invalid argument on how he's more cooler so he could beat him does not mean he is capable to out run or beat Flash. If your saying that he Quicksilver could beat him you have seen flash at his weakest. Also here is more proof Flash has raced against Superman before and has ended up in a tie. During the time they kept racing Flash has really improved and was able to catch up to Superman and passed him during certain points of their races. Flash has ran all around the world in 6 seconds even faster then Quicksilver. I have also that Flash is able to outrun his opponents that they will be hard to match up against. In a fight Flash would have to win