BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God probably doesn't exist.

...Are you saying that extremism in religion is bad and it causes suffering?Yes. But this is not the point. Is God obligated to save those who doesn’t believe in him? Does God have an obligation to us? When we don’t believe in him, why would you think he would believe in us?An all-loving god would. It is a douche-move to deny someone into Heaven/Paradise just because of his/her atheism. That person could be a citizen who works at a soup kitchen and loves all types of people. But since he is an atheist, I guess he won't go to Heaven. What I am getting at that since God (partly) caused evil, he should fix it. God created us with free will. Adam and Eve were human, thus they had free will. God has a plan for us, and he gives us the path to salvation, but we have to choose to walk it. God doesn’t force us. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. This is unrelated to the debate. True, I reposted the KCA as it seemed that you had a lack of knowledge in how the universe is matter.Stop strawmaning me. I know the Universe is filled with matter. In fact, you didn't touch off of why 'ex nilho' is wrong. I ask the voters to take my arguments as dropped.Yes, to create us and lead us to salvation.What is that cause? If he created himself out of nothing, then you just proved that the KCA can and was refuted. This has no prove and I ask of you to bring it. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. The idea of God exists in the mind. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God. Therefore, God exists. This is the Ontological argument. Note how it has a clever way of hiding the fact it is begging the question(The premise is basically the same as the conclusion). A famous example of this argument is a watch. If you find a watch on the ground, you don’t know who made the watch. But you do know that SOMEBODY created the watch. What created DNA? What created the Big Bang? What created us, the way our bodies work? Certainly we are the greatest creation of all? Science has not yet found an answer to some of these questions, so the logical answer would then be God. He created everything.
God probably doesn't exist.

I would like to point out that we have a shared BOP, I need to prove that it is more probable that God doesn’t exist, my opponent needs to prove that it is more likely that God doesn’t exist. When I blame religion for suffering, I mean about the extremity of religion. It boils my blood to hear “You’re going to HELL! ” etc. etc. I am not quite sure what my opponent means when he says this. I would invite him to clear up this confusion. Are you saying that extremism in religion is bad and it causes suffering? Besides payment, why? Because they are not obligated to. Is God obligated to save those who doesn’t believe in him? Does God have an obligation to us? When we don’t believe in him, why would you think he would believe in us? If God can look into the future, then why did he do nothing with Adam and Eve? God created us with free will. Adam and Eve were human, thus they had free will. God has a plan for us, and he gives us the path to salvation, but we have to choose to walk it. God doesn’t force us. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. You by-passed my point. True, I reposted the KCA as it seemed that you had a lack of knowledge in how the universe is matter. Did God have a cause? Yes, to create us and lead us to salvation. I will not go into detail, but these both are committing an argument from ignorance. Not sure why my opponent didn’t post his rebuttals as he had sufficient characters. I invite my opponent to thus post his rebuttals in the next round.
God probably doesn't exist.

I will remind the voters of who gas the Burden of Proof: Con. The minister and barber are walking down the street, and they see all the suffering around them. The barber says “This is why I don’t believe in God, look at all this suffering! Why doesn’t he stop it?” The minister doesn’t say anything. Then they come upon a homeless person, with a wild mane of hair and a far too long beard. The minister says “You must not be a very good barber, if you were a good barber you wouldn’t let people around here have that kind of hair.” I stop you here. When I blame religion for suffering, I mean about the extremity of religion. It boils my blood to hear "You're going to HELL!" etc etc. A flaw with your reason. Barbers are not a high-payer job. I would not blame any one if that man did not cut the homeless hair. Besides payment, why? Because they are not in obligation to. God made this mess, he should make it rain. A second theory on why God doesn’t intervene is because it is part of his plan. His is omniscient, so he will always know what will happen. For example, a man prays that he will pass his exam and become a lawyer. He fails his exam. Why didn’t God answer his prayers? The same man later on becomes an entrepreneur, making his way up to CEO of a massive company. These are just two theories on why God doesn’t intervene. If God can look into the future, then why did he do nothing with Adam and Eve. "Because he chose not to." you might say? Then it reasons to think he is not all-loving.This is incorrect. Simplified, the Kalam argument is this: If x is true, y is true. X is true. Thus, y is true. This is one of the fundamental natural laws, everything that exists has a cause. EVERYTHING. The universe is a “thing”, it is made up of planets, stars, and matter. Because the universe exists, then it has a cause.Youby-passed my point. You just re-posted the KCA and called it a day. Extend.He just existed. Before the universe, before time, before anything, God just existed. He then created the universe, and thus us. Did God have a cause? If so, then what? This is special pleading. C1 & C2 rebuttals I will not go into detail, but these both are committing a argument from ignorance.I will go in more next round.The Ontological Argument is begging the question because the premise is hidden in the conclusion.
God probably doesn't exist.

NOTE: I expected PRO to make the first shots, but he did not. Whatever it is I am fine. Problem of Evil 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. (As defined by Christian theologians and philosophers. )2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.5. Evil exists.6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God does not have the power to eliminate all evil, or does not know when evil exists, or does not have the desire to eliminate all evil. Conclusion: Therefore, God doesn't exist. There are a few out-comes for the PE (Problem of Evil) 1: God is not Omnipotent 2: God is not Omniscient3: God is not morally perfect.4:Evil doesn't exist 5:God is not really a Tri-Omni god. Not the best argument but time to move on the the Kalam. Kalam Cosmological Argument 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2) The universe began to exist.3) Therefore, the universe had a cause. The issue with this is because we only can witness ex materia creation, not ex nihilo. We can't take the rules for "ex materia" and then sic them to "ex nihilo". One other thing. God is a problem for the KCA. WHERE did God come from? HOW (like how the big bang was created the universe? ) did God come to be? No doubt by "argument from design" logic it had to be quite the anomaly. Thus by this logic the KCA and God are self refuting. Thank you.
my opinion

You say that all happiness is about bonds, and that happiness cannot be obtained via money, when this is simply not true; in fact, 50% of your happiness comes directly from your hard-coded genetics, of which you cannot change, and 10% of happiness is from your circumstances in life, A. K. A. money. Now, your genetics cannot be changed, but you financial status can, if you work hard enough you will usually end up with more money in your life. It's obvious, that a poor man will be much less happy than the middle-class family, but nothing much changes going up from there. As with the other 40%, that is from your actions in life, it can come from bonds, but it is not always that, as a person who loves art could get his whole lives worth from his love of making artwork, as well as with other hobbies, but bonds with a person can grow or die, and can make you happy, as well as make you sad. Sources:Sonja Lyubomirsky "The How of Happiness". http://projecthappiness.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
my opinion

Happiness as we all know is about bonds. It is about the feeling of being wanted; the sense of knowing that you are valued. Money cannot but happiness nor satisfaction, and money can never overvalue the moments of togetherness between couples. Yes in this materialistic world money counts for survival but i think money brings greediness, materialism, and ultimately no time to spend with partners because comes at the cost of time. Those times that one can spend with one's partner is an opportunity cost over money. In addition to this, materialistic life never gets satisfied. suppose a person has latest iphone and he is happy to have it because he feels superior and satisfied but technology changes every now and then. After few years new version of iphone will come in market leading to no satisfaction from the phone he possess at the time. Because of having a materialistic life, he has to work extra hour to earn money to have the latest phone. If one says,people with money do not necessarily need to work; rather they can invest in business to generate profit leading the couples to have quality time. I will say, if the couple does not go through some difficulties together their relationship cannot reap full satisfaction. As i earlier said, a better and happy life is created by sharing and caring for each other. If the couples are rich, they will not get chance to create special respect and love for each other. Emotions, relationship and absolute happiness can never be gained by money. Money is the creation of humans where as emotion is natural and a part of us. therefore, I say that the couple with less money is happier and satisfied.
Suffering is good

Alright, this should be pretty easy: Con's only reasoning behind his argument that suffering is bad is that the one who is suffering doesn't like it. This doesn't matter. Just because the person doesn't like it doesn't mean it isn't benefiting them. Take brushing your teeth for example. It can be annoying to brush your teeth, but it still benefits the persons teeth. This shows that things you may not like can still be good for you. Her other point that suffering is bad because it causes victims to suffer is pretty obvious, it doesn't matter at all. It's just saying hat suffering is... My argument is essentially that suffering gives us desirable traits. All of human greatness comes from suffering because it toughens us up to do things to get out of the suffering, and thus we learn not to do the bad thing or you know what to do next time it happens. When you're in a situation that you're suffering in it encourages you to get out of the situation. It widens our knowledge of the world around us and helps humans determine what to do and what not to do. So the argument is: P1: Suffering helps us P2: Things that help us are good C: Therefore, suffering is good. I've refuted con's contentions and supported my own, vote Pro. Thanks.
Suffering is good

Suffering is bad. Suffering is bad because it is causing physical and/or pain to a victim (aka Nate Juice employee) Let's say, Nate Juice employee #1 is being tortured by Nate. This employee will be experiencing suffering due to the harsh conditions of the factory and Master Nate's actions. Will the employee enjoy this? I think not. Will he be destroyed by himself and others? Yes. Both of these, are not good things. Also, both of these, are effects of suffering. Simply put, SUFFERING IS BAD.
Polygamy should be legalized in Canada

Since this debate only has 3 rounds, I will just state my argument here and we can rebut in later rounds. First off, lets define terms: [1] Polygamy; the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time. [2] Legalized- make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law. First off, if we defined marriage we would see that marriage should be between only 2 people. [3] Marriage- the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. As you can see, Polygamy isn't classified as a marriage. Polygamy usually involves 1 man, 3 wives. Or 1 wife and 3 husbands. This first argument I'm going to make is the negative impacts that Polygamy has on wife's involved. Scientist have found that [4] "Women in polygamous marriages often suffer from negative emotions, a new study has found. " A survey conducted found that [4] "Her survey of 100 Arab women found that many of them experienced feelings of neglect and jealousy" How could we consider this a healthy marriage when 1 wife, or multiple wife's are feeling neglected and feel jealous over the other wife's? Polygamy doesn't just effect the women negatively, but can effect the *whole* family. [5]an additional problem is that this defence of polygamyreduces marriage to only a sexual relationship. On the contrary, the institution of marriageencompasses far more than sexual relations, but extends to a host of other functions, such asproperty rights, family alliances, and the raising of children. Not only is it a mistake to view polygamy and extramarital affairs as the same, but it is also a mistake to view marriage interms of sexual relations alone. So here, we can see when you are involved in a Polygamy relationship, many more problems are to follow. A man usually wants to have more than 1 wife for sexual purposes, thus lacking romantic, or actually feeling you are in a matured relationship. Many more problems are to follow. Who is going to take care of the children? What if one wife wants a divorce, who will get money? The kids will then be separated from their moms. the kids may or may not live with the dad, and if they do end up living with the dad, they will be raised by multiple other mothers. [6] According to some studies there are well over 80,000 people in the US alone living in polygamy. They, no surprise, have the highest birth rates. Many argue that the living arrangement of having 10 to 60 wives is grounds for charges of child abuse, human trafficking, physical and psychological abuse of women and children, enslavement, oppression of individual wealth and medical neglect. Why would we want to legalize Polygamy knowing the negative effects that follow this? Polygamy only makes these effects much easier to occur. They are bound to happen. I'll stop here and see what my opponent has to say. Good luck! :) Sources: [1] . https://www.google.com... [2] . https://www.google.com... [3] . https://www.google.com... [4] . http://www.thenational.ae... [5] . http://www.academia.edu... [6] . http://scribol.com...
On balance, Men are hornier than women

"Ok. You have no evidence that women focuses on their studies or focuses on other things rather than sex. Women just like it, But they are not showy about their sexual emotions. "I've talked to a lot of women. They tell me that sex is not important. I can't tell you how many women have said to this to me. These are women of all kinds. Party animals, Introverts, Rich, Poor, Young, Middle aged. Everybody. "Men masturbate for vast majority how about women? They masturbate too! "But they don't HAVE to masturbate. They can stop if they want. "And you also stated that to women, Sex is just a fun hobby, So you literally showed that women are hornier than men because women think it is a hobby but for men, It is significant. Men give significance to sex but women don't. Lastly, You stated that women don't need sex, They WANT it. So, It means you still stated that women are hornier because every people need it; but not all want it. They want it, But men NEED it. So men are hornier. They have a higher sex drive. This is a MEDICAL WEBSITE. Freaking hospitals and doctors have written in this website. They say that "Well, Yes, They do. Study after study shows that men's sex drives are not only stronger than women's, But much more straightforward. The sources of women's libidos, By contrast, Are much harder to pin down. "- https://www. Webmd. Com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare#1How's that for proof? "One proof that women are hornier than men are the prostitutes. "Prostitutes do it for money. But that's not proof. I gave you a medical website. That's more of a proof. "Also another proof that women are hornier is e. G. In a porn site, A woman has 2 or more partners to have sex with while men, Only have one. "Not true. There's a lot of porn showing a guy with two or three women! "So, I don't say all women can be horny what i've stated, But it is a majority that most women are hornier than men. "C'mon, I hope I convinced you, Men are hornier. It's just biology.
On balance, Men are hornier than women

Okay, I respect your argument. (Sorry for forfeiting the last round 'coz i'm very busy that time) Ok. You have no evidence that women focuses on their studies or focuses on other things rather than sex. Women just like it, But they are not showy about their sexual emotions. And women cannot state fun is not having sex because who said sex is fun/ain't fun? Men masturbate for vast majority how about women? They masturbate too! And you also stated that to women, Sex is just a fun hobby, So you literally showed that women are hornier than men because women think it is a hobby but for men, It is significant. Men give significance to sex but women don't. Lastly, You stated that women don't need sex, They WANT it. So, It means you still stated that women are hornier because every people need it; but not all want it. One proof that women are hornier than men are the prostitutes. Also another proof that women are hornier is e. G. In a porn site, A woman has 2 or more partners to have sex with while men, Only have one. So, I don't say all women can be horny what i've stated, But it is a majority that most women are hornier than men.
On balance, Men are hornier than women

Men are not more stupid. You don't have any evidence for that. We're not debating which gender is more stupid. I don't think so. I don't think you've talked to enough women. More women than men are saying things like "I need to focus on studies", Or "sex is not the most important thing" or "fun doesn't mean having sex". They are much more comfortable not having sex than men are. But men are uncomfortable being sexless. Men don't just masturbate for pleasure. For the vast majority, It is a physical addiction. If they abstain for more than a week, Most men can't control themselves and end up masturbating. I don't believe that women are CRAVING pleasure or sex. They are much happier doing other things like hanging out with friends or watching netflix. To them, Sex is just a fun hobby. To men, It's more important, It really HURTS not to have sex for years and years. It's not just about ego, It's biological. Everytime you look at women who go out partying. What do they always say? "I go out to have fun with my friends, I hate it when guys approach me". How many girls say this? Look around you. Look at the truth. Women are so good at keeping their legs shut, If they CRAVE sex, They will try harder. No, They don't NEED sex. They want sex, But it's not necessary to them. I am speaking in terms of majority. Asexuals, Are not the majority.
On balance, Men are hornier than women

Women are hornier than men. It doesn't mean men want sex with women and they can pay doesn't mean that women don't like it Men are more stupid, That is a fact. But women also has a sexual life than mean, Even more sexual. Women just need formality. They need and crave for sex as much more as men. Yes, Men masturbates a lot more than women but it does not mean masturbation/ejaculation can make a man hornier than women. Women crave for men. Men can pay because they need sex and women craves not just money but also sex so, How come women are hornier than men if they both need sex? Because women can get a much pleasure compared to a man can get. . . .
Waterboarding is Good

Resolved: That waterboarding practices used by the United States are good. Definitions: Waterboarding [1]: A form of torture in which the victim is immobilized and has water poured on his or her face, producing a severe gag reflex, to simulate drowning. Good [2]: 1. Morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious. 2. Satisfactory in quality. 3. Of high quality; excellent. Framework: The scope of today's debate will be limited to the United States and it's practice of waterboarding. It is the burden of the Pro to prove that waterboarding is good based on his interpretation of the definition of "good", which I will contest is necessary. The burden of the Con is to refute all contentions proposed by the Pro. I will also present my own points in Round 2. A note I'd like to add: new arguments may not be introduced after Round 3. I wish my opponent luck and thank him for his challenge. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Harsher punishments for youth who commit crimes.

That doesn't really give much to respond to..and doesn't really seem to make an argument?? But anyway, you can't blame society for someone else's mistakes. You can't blame anyone for something someone else did. Except for parents, you can blame parents. It is their sole responsibility to make sure their children turn out "right". But when youth decide to commit crimes they must accept the consequences for their actions. They cannot just pretend "oh I didn't know that this would happen" ... "Oh I wasn't aware that this was wrong." Most of them are not insane, they know exactly what they did was wrong, and they're just going to keep on doing it unless someone puts a stop to it once and for all by giving out harsher punishements. First these youth would realize that they WILL get caught, and once they are their punishment WILL be severe, it is certain, and it will happen almost immediately. If we just diddle dally around the issue and leave them hanging for months and/or years at a time, why do they care? They still get all that time in between to live. Therefore we must make certain that youth are punished more harshly than they are now, if not only for the safety of the future, but also so that they can learn that in life their are consequences and those consequences will happen.
Harsher punishments for youth who commit crimes.

Part of the reasons youth commit crimes is because of the angst they experience. If I was treated like an adult my entire life, I would of been one my entire life. However, the way society is, we coddle our children and treat them like babies, then all of a sudden it's time to start taking responsibility and start growing up. Then when we are 18, we are supposed to be adults and have responsibility down and all that. Because of the way our society is, already a lot of kids have to take responsibility for things they shouldn't be. Maybe your right that if they want to act like adults, they deserve to be treated like them. BUt society is a b**ch.