BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There Is A Moral Proof Of God!

I am still waiting for my opponent to fulfill his burden of proof. He states that morals are objective and that should be understood through common sense. Other than that, he has given no evidence that morals come from a god at all. Rather, he is making the assumption that since there are morals, there has to be a God behind them. Counter Argument Hitchens' Razor applies here: "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Also, my opponent stated that the counter argument was an option. But for the sake of argument, I will present one known as the Euthyphro Dilemma: If "God" commands the good, because it is good, it implies that the objective standard for what is good does not rest in "God", but in "good" itself, or some other external standard or "good". If on the other hand, a good is good because "God" merely declares it so, then "good" is arbitrary, and subjective (to "God") rather than objective. This understanding of good is called Divine Command Theory " where good is whatever God says is good. This is problematic for believers because if "God" were to decree that murder and theft are good, would that make it so? Most Christians are reluctant to go down this slippery slope. It also becomes problematic to refer to "God" as a good god, if good is whatever "God" willed on a whim. The term "good" thus loses any real meaning. Therefore, morals cannot be objective.
There Is A Moral Proof Of God!

I honestly do not feel like continuing, I feel as if my opponent has not even read my thesis. He then increases his font size so it looks as if he actually did write something. I shall start by refuting his childish refutations: 1. This debate would not do well with great many sources, as it is philosophical; if my opponent wants sources then here: [1] The Critique of Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant [2] Theodice by Leibniz [3] Kantian Ethics by Allen W. Wood I think the person credited for revolutionizing the philosophical world, and the physical for this essays natural science, would not give an argument which was "baseless". But that is an appeal to authority from my side, let me show to you logically how my opponent has not refuted my claims. 2. I said that if they are objective morals then there is a God. I do not need to prove a God to prove this premise, this premise aims to prove God. Secondly only God can transcend time and space, and absolute morals transcend time and space, only God could provide absolute morals. Not to mention only God could fulfil the summum bonum (did you honestly read the argument). Also my argument about innate dreams was not refuted by you. 3. There is so much I said about how morals are absolute and you simply make a claim? I spoke about innate dreams, and moral ontology and you simply give me a two line answer, one which does not point out one logical error, but rather simply states that I did not prove anything. 4. He did not lay down a counter argument, 5. Here are the sources (mentioned above), though I believe this essay might reinforce the idea from my perspective ( I wrote it): https://beaconhouse.academia.edu... For the reason that the refutations did not engage my arguments, and the fact I think my opponent will forfeit, I have not written much. However my original arguments stand, and I hope my opponent provides a better argument next time 'round. Thank you, Ajab
it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible to say that some nonchristians can be saved

Friend, Your response doesn't make much sense. It's like you're saying that if I call something red, it doesn't necessarily mean it's only red. You cannot read something where Jesus says he's the only way and try and say otherwise. It's like you're implying that there is another way when scriptures say that there isn't. If you can give me text that explains and gives credibility to what your saying then you will have won. Moreover, I don't believe that you can properly win an argument by telling me what the Bible doesn't say. Unless you have scriptural proof that completely blows mine out of the water I'm going to have to conclude that you're just making things up and twisting things in order to win. I must see consistency in what you say so that your point can be proven so far I see nothing
it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible to say that some nonchristians can be saved

to be sure, there are many examples where Jesus says "i am the only way to be saved" and such as that. but that doesn't mean nonchristians are necessarily damned. any salvation they achieve is through Jesus. and there are plenty of verses that say if you do beleive, you are saved.... but that doesn't necessarily mean if you don't believe you are condemned. we have to look at the verses that specifically say how they are NOT saved, how they are condemned.... and when we do that, we run into the verses i gave. and those give the idea of rejecting JEsus cause your ways are dark.
it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible to say that some nonchristians can be saved

The bible is very clear. Jesus said in Mark 16 that whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved and whoever does not shall be damned. The bible also says in acts when the Jews asked what must they do to be saved he told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for their sins. Jesus expresses through the gospels that if you believe on Him as the scripture says, out of your belly shall flow rivers of living water, which He spoke of the Holy Spirit, the bible says that if you do not have the Spirit of Christ then you are none of His. It says that we are saved by grace through faith in Romans Also says that there must be a confession of the mouth and believing in the heart to be saved. Non Christians cannot be saved without Christ, you must accept His redemptive work
it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible to say that some nonchristians can be saved

it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible to say that some nonchristians can be saved there are four major points in the bible that i can think of regarding salvation of nonchristians. one is around John 3:16 where it says something to the effect of... "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not parish, but have ever lasting life. for God did not send his son to condemn the world, but that that world should be saved through him. and those who do not believe stand already condemned. and this is the condemnation, that God sent the light, but the people rejected the light because their ways were dark". one is in a different spot in John where he says something to the effect of "unless you believe that I AM he, you will die in your sins". one is at the end of Mark, where he says "go forth baptizing people in the name of the father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. those who believe and are baptize will be saved, those who don't, will be condemned". and there are a few spots in the nongospels part of the new testament, where it says things like "those who engage in immorality will be thrown in along with unbelievers". the way to interpret these verses. the first three verses here have a presupposition to condemnation.... rejecting Jesus. And, the first example gave a very specific response on that rejection.... rejecting cause your ways are dark. the last verse gives the indication that 'nonbelievers are condemned". but, if you read the verses holistically, a nonbeliever could and should be considered someone who rejects Jesus, and the least common denominator of all the verses indicates that that rejection should include rejecting Jesus cause your ways are dark. so we see that non only could a hypothetical man on an island who has never heard of Jesus be saved, so could so many people who reject Jesus, but reject him for reasons other than their ways being dark. indeed, an englightened mind who rejects the truth, has trouble in store for him.
Aquinas' Natural Law Theory cannot accurately explain moral objectivism

My opponent say's I'm confusing moral objectivism but I don't think I am off base. I was merely explaining terms of objectivism and naturalism and the opposition. If these words are applied to the term moral then they must be defined. I am also a Christian and do not think God committed a immoral act at all. I realise that murdering is wrong and immoral. Though I do not think any request by God is wrong because He asks it(I do not question it). Though I see the way we try to hold Him to the same standard as we are commanded. It is not required. God doesn't follow the same laws in which we are confined. Though it seems reasonable that God would not kill unjustly. There are many ways to reconsile this: 1) Issac could have been a pure sacrifice and fit for forgiving sins. (sacrificing was a way to forgive sins then. ) 2) Or that as my opponent mentions Abraham was the one sacrificing and commanded by God. This would be a command from God and would not be immoral for Abraham to do it because he was commanded by God. God also is not under the laws we have. Therefore God knew He would not kill Issac and therefore was never immoral but a test from God to Issac. 3) And morality stems from God and it is in us. God has moral action in His request of Issac being sacrificed. This would be from 1) that by sacrificing Issac many could be saved because of it. This moral action would be knowledge we do not understand and God does so therefore even questioning it is beyond our ability. The fact is that men commanding someone to kill anyone is immoral but it is not for God. Natural Law theory is that it believes that the moral law is absolute. We can not know the reasons of God to commanded death. It is not a contradiction to claim that moral objectivism is true and God is moral. My opponent suggests it is not but he is wrong. He did not supply any evidence for his claims. I wonder if this is just his theory? My opponent never showed us any references to verify his claims here. I do admit I was not completely aware of my opponents stance and I am still troubled by it. But I think I have shown that Objectivism is moral.
Aquinas' Natural Law Theory cannot accurately explain moral objectivism

My opponent is confusing moral objectivism, the belief that moral truths actually exist, with Objectivism, the crackpot pseudo-philosophy of Russian-American author Alisa Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand). His refutation of it is interesting but extremely off topic. God did not ask Abraham to do something He already did. First of all, He commanded Abraham to do it. Second, Christ had not been sent into the world until 1800 years after Abraham. The fact is that commanding someone to kill their son is immoral IF you believe in objective morality. I personally do not believe that God acted immorally when He commanded Abraham to kill Isaac because morality is subjective upon the will of God. The problem for Natural Law theory is that it believes that the moral law is absolute yet God commanded murder. It is nothing but contradiction to claim that moral objectivism is true and God is moral. One must either say "God is moral and morality is subjective" or "God is immoral and morality is objective". The part about what other people did at the same time period is odd for someone arguing for moral objectivism as objective morality rejects the idea that moral issues require context or historical situation. That is the idea of objective morality, it is always either moral or immoral. As a Christian, I believe that Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was very good and moral action. I say this for two reasons. The first is that moral actions are moral based upon the commands of God, contra Aquinas' Natural Law theory. The second is that, as a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is the same being as the Father so it was more self-sacrifice then killing His son that is of another being. The two stories aren't analogous at all upon further evaluation. In Abraham's case, it was God commanding a man to kill another being who was his son. In Christ's case, it was God Himself becoming man to die for the world. In summary, my opponent has failed to show how Aquinas' objectivist moral code can fit with the Biblical account or avoid logical inconsistencies. If morality is objective and commanding murder is wrong, then God committed an immoral action.
Aquinas' Natural Law Theory cannot accurately explain moral objectivism

My opponent has sort of gone off on an irrelevant tangent about Natural Law vs. Legal Positivism. I am going to stand by my arguments and press him on the Sacrifice of Isaac. I think we can all agree that commanding a man to kill his own son is immoral, no matter what the intentions of the agent commanding such an act. The act itself is wrong and Natural Law theory agrees with me. Where we disagree is that they claim that God is somehow exempt from morality, which doesn't work if they claim that morality is founded in God's nature and God cannot go against that nature. If you accept the Biblical account of Genesis, then you accept that God did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. It is irrelevant whether God stopped Abraham before he could kill Isaac. God still commanded what Aquinas' theory would call immoral. I would say the safest ethical theory to hold to regarding God and morality is Divine Command Theory. Otherwise, you would be rationally obligated to say that God committed an immoral act.
Aquinas' Natural Law Theory cannot accurately explain moral objectivism

I will accept the resolution and will attempt to negate it. My resolution is: Aquinas' Natural Law Theory can accurately explain moral objectivism Lets define some things here: Accurately- consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact. Explain- to make plain or clear; render understandable or intelligible. Moral- expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct. Objectivism- a tendency to lay stress on the objective or external elements of cognition. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Hopefully this helps us out. Rounds: 1. Acceptance. 2. Arguementa 3. Rebuttals 4. Rebuttals/Conclusion I accept this structure and send it back to Pro! I await your arguement.
My opponent will contradict themselves

Question 8 a decimal point was the answer that I was looking for(5.9). Question 9 you can give someone happiness/sadness/frustration/ect. even though you don't have it. Question 10 the pope is an atheist. Atheist definition is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. There are other other gods than the Christian one, and the pope lacks belief in those. Therefore, the pope is an atheist to every other religion/God. we will continue this last round. CHECK THE COMMENT SECTION AFTER CON HAS POSTED THIS ROUND. I will list any contradictions he may have. 11.Is the sky blue? 12.Is the grass green? 13.Is the sun yellow? 14.Is there a letter "e" in this sentence? 15.Is your answer here different than the other 4?
My opponent will contradict themselves

Wait do I need to answer 6-10 as well? 1-5 are four yeses and one undefined. I could also say yeah instead of yes but that is cheating. And I could have unfriend all my friends and say no. 6 Yes, lotteries are fake. 7 Yes, as they are lying that they always lie. 8 Yes, the greater to symbol! 9 No 10 No, Pope is also bishop
My opponent will contradict themselves

Thank you lord_megatron;) My opponent has admitted he would have contradicted themselves if he answered the questions. I will continue this debate, and please sir list your "yes" or "no" answers to each question when it's your turn in this round. Good luck 6.There is one winning ticket in a large lottery. Is it reasonable to believe that a particular lottery ticket is not the winning ticket, since the probability that it is the winner is so very small? 7.If someone says "I always lie", are they lying? 8. If you have 5 and 9 together is there a mathematical symbol that you could put between them that would make 5 greater than 9? 9.Is it possible to give something we don't have? 10.Is the pope an atheist?
My opponent will contradict themselves

You can give an explanation, BUT you must answer yes or no. Neither is not an acceptable answer. "Yes" or "No" are the only acceptable answers. 1.Is your name on debate.org lord_megatron? 2.Have you participated in any previous debates? 3.Do you have any friend(s) on Debate.org? 4.Have you tied in any previous debates? 5.Have you said yes 4 times total this round?
Abolish Homework from Schools

Homework wastes the time of students, and does not achieve anything apart from stressing them out and making them write about things they have done in school, therefore it should be abolished. If they are required to do all this, what exactly do they do in school? Many say that homework is to 'make sure students have fully learnt what they were taught at school'. Is this not what classwork is for? It's not as if students need to learn many things they are required to learn. For example - history
Senator Barack Obama is a better pick for President then Senator Hillary Clinton.

Better in this case means which ever candidate is more likely to win in the general election against Senator McCain. The point of the Debate is either o prove Senator Clinton is a better Candidate or Senator Obama is a worse candidate for the Democrats. It is not the point to not prove anything. Senator Obama has shown foresight and intelligence. 1. He spoke out against the Iraq war at a time when the politically correct thing to do was endorse it which Senator Clinton did when she voted to approve the war. 2. Senator Obama spoke out against the gas tax which basic economics says it a dumb idea because when demand goes up(which it will with lowered prices) and supply stays the same(which it most likely will do) then prices will skyrocket. Senator Clinton was pandering o the lowest common denominator. 3. Senator Clinton was obviously race baiting in Mississippi when she said Senator Obama won only because of a strong African American heritage, and President Clinton said that, "Well you know Al Sharpton won South Carolina." after Senator Obama won SOuth Carolina. 4. Senator Clinton actively called Senator Obama's religion into question when she said she thought he was Christian when she has been to several Capitol Hill prayer breakfasts with him. 5. Senator Clinton lied to the American people about what really happened in Bosnia. 6.Senator Clinton didn't fire Mark Penn even though her own campaign told her to and she said she did. 7. As of right now Senator Clinton is $20 million debt for her campiagn even after earning $21 million in April and loaning herself money. How can someone who is an equal or better candidate be that much in the hole? 8. Since whendoes being liberal end your ability to be bipartisan? 9. Just because Senator Clinton sponsored bill in the U.S. Senate Senator Obama in the Illinois legislature actually passed a bill that reformed the death penalty something Senator Clinton hasn't done. 10. Senator Obama in the Illinois Senat with Republican help pssed the Earned Income Tax Credi which provided over 3 years $100 million dollars in tax cuts to working class families. 11. In the U.S. Senate Senators Obama (D-IL) and Coburn (R-OK) passed a bill that allows American tax payers to go on the web and see where their tax dollars are being spent. 12. With Republican Dick Lugar Senator Obama went to Eastern Europe to begin talks on next generation nonproliferation treaties. These alone show that Senator Clinton is by far a worse candidate and Senator Obama is a better candidate.
Senator Barack Obama is a better pick for President then Senator Hillary Clinton.

This year has been a historical year for the Democrats. The two frontrunners are minorities. One a well known woman and former first lady. The other a black, relatively unknown man. Though they both represent the Democratic Party in the U.S. Senate Barack Obama of Illinois is a better Presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton because the Republicans have less baggage to attack him for, he has won more states, he has more superdelegates, he has more pledged delegates, he is more bipartisan, represents change in an election all about it after 8 years of failed policies, and using the count without Florida and Michigan the popular vote. These and many more are the reasons why the Democrats should pick Senator Barack Obama as their Presidential nominee for 2008.
Evolution taught to Christian Schools

I'm not really sure how a parent could be biased. Parents have the burden of teaching their children about the world. Although they are probably Christian, all they really have to say is "Other people believe in a different God than us. Some people don't even believe in God, but believe in evolution, where <explanation for evolution>. However, we are all different. We should respect them for that and that it is their choice to believe that." There isn't any possible bias. Of course all children can decide to believe in something that their parents don't believe in, but it should still be the parent's job to educate the child on other religions and what they are. The same argument could be made for why kids even go to school: "Why do kids go to school if their parents can just teach them about it?" The kids go to Christian schools to honour God as well as learn about non-religious subjects. They also go to school to learn about their religion. When I say that parents should educate their kids, I don't mean that they should sit down for six hours talking about whatever. They should just give a brief explanation that summarizes whatever it is that they are talking about. It's kind of like giving a child "the talk" but about religion. Christianity is a large religion. The Bible is huge and filled with things to learn, and the parents don't have time to teach their child everything about Christianity just as an atheist parent doesn't have the time to teach their child everything about science or math. They are there to learn new things about Christianity that their parents don't have time for, like what you said education was about. Students can absolutely form new ideas about the world around them--nobody is forcing them to be Christian. Hopefully when a Christian child's parents tell him/her about other religions, they become imaginative and choose whichever religion they want to practice. This debate wasn't short at all. I'm glad that you haven't forfeited, as most new debaters seems to do so every time they have to respond to an argument. Also, I was reading through my post in the first round and I may have come off as snarky and generally a jerk, so I apologise for that. I enjoyed this debate, thank you. You did well.
Evolution taught to Christian Schools

Yes, you could go to your parents to learn about Evolution but their interpretation of it could be completely biased considering the fact that they are Christian. I know you said they are Christian and that's not what they believe in but have the minds of the young students have had the chance to drift away from the veiws of their parents and come up with their own? Most kids will go to their parents for their veiws since those are the people you know best and depend on the most. You said that the students really don't need to learn about it because it's not in their culture. Learning others cultures makes you so much more aware of the world and the different kind of people around you. If the kids are Christian why would they need to go to a Christian school if they already know the story of Jesus? Why would they go to a school to learn things their parents can teach them? Isint the whole point of education itself is to learn new information that you didn't know before? I see why the Bible and Evolution can't really go together but the idea of a God doesn't always have to be associated with bible. Let the students form their own ideas of the world around them. And if they do look at the other way people see things and still choose Christianity that would only make the stronger Christians. Sorry if this was on the shorter side, this was my first debate online and I'm still learning. This has been a good topic and discussion and I look forward to reading your rebuttal.