BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Existence of God

In what seems to be a drastic turn of events, Con has completely dropped his anti-Christian polemic in favor of a few arguments that vaguely attack God's existence.The Thomistic Cosmological ArgumentAgain, not directly responded to, though Con will later provide some general arguments against the existence of the Divine.Con's various argument(s) contra the existence of GodCon claims that nature is indifferent, and that it obeys certain laws completely irrespective of our acknowledgement of them. It's not clear how this is relevant to the debate, however. I have never confused the epistemic nature of the Universe with its ontology -- instead, my argument is based in a metaphysical principle that holds true without our knowledge of it. Hence, this critique is misguided.Moreover, the repetitive and indifferent nature of the laws of the Universe appear to reinforce the Aristotelian theory of motion. For instance, Con gives us an example anent planetary formation and the heliocentric Solar System. All of this seems to affirm a natural order to the physics of the Universe -- we will never find a potential raising itself to act, for that contradicts itself, since a potential doesn't exist. Only that which is actual can realize a potential -- for instance, the various bodies of the Solar System gravitationally interacting, raising a protoplanetary disk's potential into the actuality of a new world. So the natural order of the Universe seems to affirm that it operates under immutable metaphysics.Con's defense of evolution is irrelevant, since I've never once critiqued evolution. In fact, I happen to find evolutionary theories convincing, and thus reject young Earth creationism.Next, Con attempts to explain the difference theory and law, all of which are irrelevant. My argument is not an appeal to the best explanation for some empirical observation -- rather, it's a metaphysical demonstration that God exists given the principle of motion. However, Con seems to have pasted this to reinforce his defense of evolution, which, I'll repeat, is irrelevant.Con claims that God is a "poor designer," but since I did not use any argument from intelligent design (the First Way is not a teleological argument...) this is irrelevant as well.ConclusionUnexpectedly, devient.genie has once again employed the rather shortsighted tactic of ignoring St. Thomas's argument, instead offering a new argument mostly concerning evolution. Since my case's truth is independent of evolution, his argument is once again irrelevant to the discussion.
The Existence of God

So, it seems that Con has repeated his rather faulty tactic of ignoring my central case and reiterating his anti-Christian polemic. I'll review both of our cases once again.Thomistic Cosmological ArgumentBecause of Con's repeated ignorance of Aquinas's First Way, there is yet again nothing to respond to.Con's anti-Christian polemicI'll simply remind the reader that this debate concerns natural theology rather than revealed theology, so Con's case against Christianity, while unconvincing, is also wholly irrelevant to a debate exclusively on the existence of God. However, Con seemingly advances an attack on the existence of the God as described in my opening argument, with what seems to be an appeal to the close-minded tactic of following a monotheistic God, rather than a polytheistic deity, such as that of the ancient Egyptian pantheon. I take this to mean a general critique of worshipping a particular God. Well, rejecting pantheism and such, the theist has two broad options in his worship of a deity: polytheism or monotheism. Ra was the solar deity of the ancient Egyptians, a specific element in a pantheonic set. However, there is good reason to hold to a singular deity over multiple deities. As I've proved in round 1 that there exists a being of pure actuality, with remarkably Judeo-Christian traits, such as omnipotence, etc., we can also ascribe the attribute of singularity to God. For a distinction between two 'Gods' (beings of pure act) there must be some difference -- an unrealized potentiality. However, this is a contradiction in what it means to be Pure Act, so there can only be one being of this particular type. So, the very idea of a pantheon contradicts a classical theistic conception of God as Pure Act. Thus, there is no good reason to believe in Ra, a contingent deity with unrealized potentialities, and every reason to hold to a necessary deity of pure actuality.ConclusionDevient.genie has once again completely ignored St. Thomas's argument from motion, and instead engages in a rehashed attack on Christianity, which I will repeat is irrelevant to the debate at hand. However, he concludes with an interesting critique concerning the existence of a singular God as described over a polytheistic pantheon. Consequently, I demonstrated that my proof of God as pure actuality is incompatible with multiple deities, necessarily with some unactualized potentiality.
The Existence of God

Thanks to devient.genie for his contribution to the debate. Unfortunately, he seems to have completely ignored my argument. I’ll make this round short.The Thomistic Cosmological Argument Con ignored St. Thomas’s argument concerning motion, and so there is nothing to respond here. Con's Anti-Christian polemic Con then goes on to attack Christianity with multiple points. I’ll remind Con that we are debating the existence of God, not the truth of any particular religion. So even if Con’s case were coherent, it’s not relevant to the debate at hand. Concluding with “in other words, the christian story is a fairly tale, just like the other three examples we have examined,” Con has ignored my positive case for the existence of God and instead advanced three points in support of his anti-Christian polemic. Since Christianity is a revealed religion -- a religion that acknowledges divine revelation and intervention as fundamental to its authenticity -- its truth concerns both natural theology and revealed theology. However, the existence of God is by definition a matter relevant to natural theology; so, this debate only concerns natural theology. Since St. Thomas argued only from nature, and not from any sort of divine relevation, as proof of the existence of God, my thesis stands strong in the face of Con's barely coherent criticism. So it seems that devient.genie has completely missed the point of the debate.
Faculty and Staff of schools should not be allowed to conceal carry a firearm in any US state.

Hoping to have a friendly debate to sharpen myself and my opponent. The Pro/Aff will argue that Faculty and staff of schools (As in all public schools) should not be allowed to conceal carry a firearm. First round will be accepting the debate, 2nd is our arguments, 3rd is rebuttal, and 4th is final thoughts, and hopefully admitting where we were wrong and what we learned. Forgive me if I am missing something as this is one of my first debates. Thank you!
Atheism is a Lie

This whole debate is about definitions. This is sad that my opponent is even aware of one definition, finds alternative wording that says the same thing, and is still misunderstanding the definition. Here is my opponent"s definition; " disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Here is the definition I have provided which he has called incorrect; " The lack of belief in a god or gods." You can see that they are both the same definition, and "lack of belief" are the key words in those definitions. Now my opponent goes on to explain that the definition I have provided is actually one for agnosticism. For one, that is incorrect, for another thing, even if correct. So What? Often times multiple words have the same definition. Stating a word has a synonym is not a rebuttal. Agnosticism is the belief that one cannot know whether God exists or not. You can believe god exists and be agnostic or disbelieve in God and also be agnostic. A person is either atheist or theist, there is no purgatory between the two such as agnosticism. I happen to be an agnostic atheist, My sister is an agnostic theist. " Agnosticism, (from Greek agn!3;stos, "unknowable"), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience. The term has come to be equated in popular parlance with skepticism about religious questions in general and in particular with the rejection of traditional Christian beliefs under the impact of modern scientific thought." So no "lack of belief" or atheist is not the meaning of or synonym for agnostic. Here my opponent defines lie: " Defintion of a LIE. Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com dictionary.reference.com " browse " lie Mobile-friendly - to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. Synonyms: prevaricate, fib. 6. to express what is false; convey a false impression. verb (used with object), lied, lying." This definition shows that there must be an intention of dishonesty. Being wrong, conveying wrong information or saying something that is untrue, is not a lie unless there is some sort of intent to deceive, and my opponent has made no argument that lying has occurred, or that atheism is some sort of intentional deception. (intention being the key word) Vote for Wylted, and don"t forget to award me conduct points. I deserve conduct points, because there is no way he is mentally retarded enough to not know how utterly stupid he sounds. This means he is trolling and deserves a loss of conduct.
Atheism is a Lie

con has set forth a definition proposed by atheist.org. A credible source is an objective source that can be TRUSTED. If atheism is a lie, atheists cannot give a credible definition for themselves. They are liars. As you have done. The definition you incorrectly portray is the definition of Agnosticism. Not atheism. Atheism is correctly defined as below, from a MoDeRn dictionary, a"the"ism noun disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. synonyms:nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism "atheism was not freely discussed in his community" - source ; dictionary.com It does reflect your definition. And it is also in line with mine. However, I would also content atheism is disbelief and agnosticism is a lack of belief. Further i would contend atheists are not the same as agnostics. My opponent will of course argue that they are. But I would remind the audience that true agnostics vehemently oppose the label "atheist" because they deem it irrational. These agnostics include Descartes, Hume, Kant, Chonsky and so on. Con says "if any judge is stupid enough..." Ad hominem fallacy. He is saying my argument is stupid, without providing proper logical reasons for why. He only provided FALSE definitions to obscure FACTS. FACT - a lack of belief is not a disbelief. FACT - agnostics do not call themselves atheists. So dont u dare call ur self an agnostic atheist to remove your self from my logical construct, which is absolutely true. FACT - atheists pretend to be agnostic, but are infact atheist. Atheism is a LIE. Defintion of a LIE. Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com dictionary.reference.com " browse " lie Mobile-friendly - to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. Synonyms: prevaricate, fib. 6. to express what is false; convey a false impression. verb (used with object), lied, lying. If something is false. Yet expressed as bearing truth, such as the claim that "God requires evidence to BeLIEVE", it becomes a LIE. All of Con's points have been refuted. And my logic stands correct, valid, and true. I would like Con to provide non biased definitions, as I have, to further make his point. If he has any more. It would appear i won already. Atheists pretend to know if God exists or not. Based on the available evidence. And therefore disbelieve Any god or God exists. They make claims to knowledge, they donnot have, and therefore make themselves liars. Con is only right about one thing. It does get tedious when someone arguing against you doesn't even know what simple words mean.
Atheism is a Lie

Hopefully my opponent has enough sense to concede when this round is over, otherwise this will get tedious and boring. I am an atheist and do not assert that God does not exist. I think my opponent is unaware of the definition of atheism, but he is about to be made aware. Definition-The lack of belief in a god or gods. https://atheists.org... Most modern dictionaries agree with this definition, as do just about any atheist you ask. It is not a disbelief in God, but a lack of belief, and therefore makes no claims. Furthermore if any of the judges are stupid enough to buy pro's argument, it still fails. It fails because the argument doesn't make atheism a lie. A lie is a dishonest statement. It is an intentional dishonest statement. A belief system that is wrong, is not a lie. It is merely wrong.
Atheism is a Lie

There are no rules in logical debates. The only rule is that you be logical. If you are illogical , or only want to discuss things based on a matter of your own opinion, please do not accept this debate. I present 3 constructs, in which i argue each is a logical truth on its own.. As well as my final conclusion. You can attempt to refute any part of my construct, definitions or logic. Just please do so logically. My resolution is "Atheism is a lie." Below is my logical argument supporting my resolution. Belief...assumption of truth with or without evidence Disbelief assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence. Faith. An assertive Belief without valid evidence. Knowing. An assertive belief with valid evidence. Construct 1 Premise1 : If no one knows if God exists or not Premise2: And somebody claims to KNOW Conclusion: That person is a liar. Construct 2 Premise 1: Believers claim they have faith God exists. Premise 2: to have faith is a belief without valid evidence (see defintions) Conclusion: Believers do not claim to "know" if God exists. Construct 3 Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists. Premise 2: To disbelieve is to reject a claim based on a lack of valid evidence and annabundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions) Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists. Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.
College Dining Hall Hours and Meal Swipes

To answer your questions: 1) If enough of the students want breakfast before 10 AM on the weekends, the college will put breakfast out before 10 AM. From what I gather in your argument, it's not a big enough issue for the college in question to justify opening dining hall doors before 10 AM on a weekend (or to employ people willing to come in earlier). If that changes, the college will change its policy. Nothing is unfair about the current policy. 2) Yes. If people are paying that amount, than it is more than reasonable. It is profitable to both the student and the college. Remember, no college is forcing their students to pay for meals, and if they are doing so unfairly, no one would go to that college. This is a free market we live in after all. It would be the student's choice to buy the meal plan, and the college's choice where to price it. I await my opponent's response.
Abortion should be legal

Readers of the debate, either my opponent has conceded or simply didn't expect to get any challengers and left his single round intact. he has not answered any of my arguments, he has not fulfilled nor defended the resolution and the key notes I made on the resolution and set as a condition on the victory of my opponent have not been answered and stand strong. He failed to provide us with any worthwhile arguments against abortion. I already pointed out the fallacies within his case and he builds his facts on moral reasons instead of actual logic and/or facts that support his side of the debate. Thus it must be clear that abortion should remain legal for all women, and give them the right to their own bodies.
Abortion should be legal

A fetus may not be alive yet but a mother's job is to nurture and care for their young when they are vulnerable. To abort a child IS TO MURDER A CHILD. It may not be a child yet but it has the potential to be one. The moment that the egg was fertilized IT WILL BE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to help and watch your child/children develop into beings and contribute to the ever developing human society. One way of abortion is called a Dilation and Evacuation abortion or D&E this form along with any form of abortion is barbaric. They remove a limb at random from the fetus with a clamp one by one through the canal. Then the remaining innards are removed. Afterwards the head and it's precious brain held within is crushed by the clamp and removed. The placenta and anything remaining is removed by suction from the uterus. Yes it is not our business to decide what you should do to your body but there is a point when you put your child at risk it is needed to intervene for the welfare of the human. If you believe in human rights you would not have a abortion because you would believe that every human should have a equal chance of life. You cannot remove a potential life from this Earth if it impacts you in a minor way, the only reason to have a abortion is if you are raped, the mother's life is at risk if she gives birth. The majority of cases in abortion are entirely selfish and only abort to make themselves avoid a social situation or make sure that their child does not impact their financial or academic career. Abortions are also seen to impact the mother's life as when they get older they have a higher chance of getting cancer. In conclusion abortion is a uncivilized, barbaric and utterly stupid act. If you do not want the child give it to an orphanage and if you do not want to be seen pregnant in the majority of cases it is your fault. You got pregnant, you were not paying attention so do not make the innocent child suffer for your actions that is selfish.
Universal Health Care

RESOLUTIONThat a universal health care system, on balance, is beneficial.DEFINITIONSUniversal health care:nounA health care system organized by government and built around the principle of universal coverage to all citizens.Beneficial:adjectiveIn this debate, beneficial will refer to an increase in the general standard of living. Further examination of the meaning does not need to be brought up in this debate.INTRODUCTIONI'm am happy to be starting this debate which I have been planning to do with jimtimmy. I have been waiting tell I had more time to devote to debating. Hopefully there will be no forfeits here. May no one vote without reading and may they be honest in doing so.I will lay out a few short points that I may add to or expand on later. Con may simply rebut or may include his own points but there will be no new points by him in the last round.ARGUMENTS1. Universal health care will decrease spending on health careAccording to OECD Health Data[1], the United States spends much more on healthcare per capita, US$ PPP than the U.K., Switzerland, Japan, Germany, France, Canada or Australia. And what is the difference between the countries and the United States? They all have universal health care and it doesn't.But how could this be so? There are a multitude of reasons but the most pronounced is preventive medicine. In countries without universal health care, namely the United States, the majority of individuals with ailments, whether they know of them or not, have a strong incentive to stay away from check-ups because it will cost them money that they are already struggling to hold onto. 2. Universal health care will save lives.The American Journal of Public Health confirms that around 45,000 people die each year in the United States due to lack of health insurance [2]. Arguments can be made concerning how much health care could cost. Even though, as I would see the evidence suggests, universal health is good for the economy, it doesn't even matter. For if it was bad for the economy, it is still putting a price on human life to say that we would be better without it. Not only human life but human health. While many die from lack of insurance there are still many more who will live in agony.Universal health care is the humane thing to do.3. Universal Health care will help the economyAccording to the US Department of Labor, the average American spends about 3,175 dollars a year on health insurance [3]. Universal health care puts that money back into the hands of the people who need it. Based on the simple mathematics of shared cost, health care would cost the average person less in tax than it would in price. Even better when the cost is fronted by the rich who could barely bat an eye at losing 3,175 dollars that most Americans are desperate to keep.Securing basic needs will blunt the blade of any recession.This is why the International Monetary Fund urges that the most important thing nations can do in an economic downturn is to strengthen their social safety nets [4].SOURCES1. http://upload.wikimedia.org...2. http://news.harvard.edu...3. http://www.bls.gov...4. http://www.imf.org...
America Is A "Rape Culture"

Form of The Debate: Round One will be the acceptance of the debate and explanation of your position as well as some introductions. Round Two will be centered around stating facts that would support your statement. Round Three will be responding to your opponent's facts. Round Four will be rebuttals of statements in Round Tree. Finally, Round Five will be closing statements and any other things you may want to address. This is a serious topic, so I'd like to keep everything respectful.Introduction:I think that we in fact do not live in a rape culture as many feminists or SJW's like to state. I'd also like to state that this is an ideal made up by progressive individuals searching for a movement to fight for. Thank you, and I look forward to the debate.
Organized Religion is good for society.

Since my opponent has refused to make his arguments I will keep this brief. Thought history religion has been the cause of most conflict, people during the holocaust where singled out and murdered on a incomprehensibly large scale purely because there religion was considered inferior. Events such as 9/11 or 11/9 (depending on what side of the pond you are on ). Can be attributed to extreme religious views again causing so much grief to the friends and families of the dead . People are branded by their religion since 9/11 western views and relationships towards Muslims have become considerably worse. Religion does not help society but divide it.