BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Deism is more Reasonable than any Revealed Religion

My opponent has incorrectly assumed that since I'm a Christian, the Bible is my only evidence for Jesus and his supernatural acts. I will devote this round of argument to proofs of the the supernatural acts performed by our personal God outside of the Bible. Tacitus "Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote: Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . . What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus. But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? Historian's suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." " [1] Flavius JosephusPerhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. "Josephus was an eyewitness to history, and his writings are considered authoritative. These texts are key to understanding a pivotal point in world history, which has tragic repercussions even to this day."Josephus writes.. "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has not disappeared." [2]http://ancienthistory.about.com...http://www.sacred-texts.com... http://www.probe.org...
Deism is more Reasonable than any Revealed Religion

My opponent clearly lives under the premise that everything that has been stated in the past is either false or incomplete, with the remarkable justification of "one day it could be proved false when we know more". Living under this believe one could say "Pi actually does have a last decimal point, we just don't know enough yet to prove otherwise", or "What humans see every day is actually an illusion and not reality, we just can't prove it yet." He also doesn't understand the simple facts of science. I'll provide the background for this argument by giving two scientific definitions:Theory- "summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it." [1] Law- "A law generalizes a body of observations...Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'." [1](Notice that a Law of science does not, and is not required to, give a reason or a "why" of how that law works, rather it simply describes how things work in our universe.)At one point my opponent even doubts the accuracy of Antoine Lavoisier's Law of Conservation of Mass. He says "we may learn in a few decades how something could come out of nothing". I will grant my opponent that indeed this is a possibility, however, if he uses an argument with such baseless doubt then he in turn is saying he doubts all scientific laws that we live by today. If my opponent wishes to believe that he is somehow in possession of knowledge greater than the likes of Newton, Lavoisier, and Einstein, then he is free to that belief, but we all know better than that. In the end, his baseless "argument" against the Cosmological argument doesn't even matter when it comes to this debate. This is because there is only one being that has ever walked the face of planet Earth who was successful in defeating death, Jesus Christ. When Jesus was crucified, his body was left in a tomb under guard every hour of every day. Three days after his crucifixion, the body of Jesus Christ was no longer in the tomb where he was originally laid, and he soon made contact with the beloved disciple John and many others to follow, proving that he was the flesh of God sent to earth. This miracle proves that our creator didn't "cease to exist" after he created the Universe, and his teachings prove without a doubt that he is not an "impersonal" creator.http://chemistry.about.com...;
Deism is more Reasonable than any Revealed Religion

My personal religion is Christianity, however most of my arguments will be universal, and could be used by a member of most religions. I will begin by quoting the Cosmological argument. This argument, consists of two main parts. First, it proves that there is indeed "a creator" which is agreed upon by my opponent (a deist) and myself, however I will quote it below as it leads into the second part of the argument. • Something exists. (the universe)• You do not get something from nothing. (1st law of thermodynamics/law of conservation of mass)• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists. • The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator. • Science and philosophy have disproved the concept of an eternal universe. a. It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite). b. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. • Therefore, an eternal Creator exists. Now, the second part of the Cosmological argument lists things that humans can infer about this creator based upon what he created. • He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space). • He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it)• He must be eternal (self-existent). • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it). • He must be timeless (He created time). • He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical. • He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. Now, the last inference is where things get good! !• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything. Lets focus on that part. The Creator DELIBERATELY created everything in our universe, which in turn means that he did so for some purpose. The Kalam Cosmological argument, as popularized by William Lane Craig, can be summarized as follows:(P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. (P2) The universe began to exist;(C) Therefore, the universe has a cause. Based on these popular arguments, I move to state that there is a Creator of our universe, and He created it for some specific reason. And since He has a reason for creating our universe, I DO NOT find it "reasonable" in any sense of the word to state (as diests do) that our Creator created us, and then simply removed himself to late nature take over. He created us for a reason, and he is involved in our every day lives to fulfill that reason.
Short Story Challenge (2)

After finishing my story, I realized that even though I picked Romance I was influenced by the other 2 choices!! The story is 7999 characters with spaces. Since, yes, no italics I also put my story online. I made an account at a publishing website for this. I hope the voters don't let all the flashing lights at the website distract them as much as they distracted me. Also I hope the link works because I haven't posted a link here before, LOL. At the bottom of the web page you can make the story pages bigger and easier to read. http://www.scribd.com... Thank you for a fun first debate!
Short Story Challenge (2)

(Is that what I'm supposed to do here in round 1? I'm new here. This is my first debate. I chose this one because well, writing is something I already know how to do without learning any new terms for this site. I hope there's no new terms in this debate. Because the site is new to me and I had trouble setting up an account and couldn't get all the details right in my profile and such, so I need this first debate to not be too difficult. ) I will accept the Romace category (of course! ). (That's what I'm supposed to do, right? I chose Romance because I'm a naturally romantic person. )
It should be okay for men to cheat but not women

In an ideal world a man meets a woman, they both fall in love and thus never need anyone else (other than friends and family). However we live in a world full of feminists and feminist supporters. My argument is split into two parts 1. It is okay for men to cheat 2. It is not okay for women to cheat. 1. Women who cheat are scrum, whores, or whatever name you want to call them. They certainly are not worthy of respect because they abuse their power - it doesn't matter if a woman is fat, shy, or horrible she can have sex with pretty much any guy she likes within 5 minutes, it requires her zero effort. So, when women cheat they want to hurt their boyfriend maybe not right away but at least when they are dumped, and they obviously do not care about having a relationship with the other guy otherwise they'd end the relationship first instead of cheating. Men who cheat might not have that opportunity again. There is pressure on men to be good at sex, they might not want to lose their girlfriend or just want to please her. 2. In an ideal world of course it would be best for men to end a relationship before starting a new one, and find a woman they love and want to spend their life with. Unfortunately, when a man does end a relationship because he doesn't feel it is working, women make that man feel socially low value, they say things like "all the good guys are taken, there is a reason why men are single and nobody wants them". Women actually believe a man who cheats is better than one who doesn't since a man who cheats must have something good going for them. Men feel degraded by being single, and not just by women either. When a man is in a failing relationship and a once in a lifetime opportunity exists, should he take it and potentially be happy forever? Or should he miss out, try but fail at breaking up gently, and then feel like rubbish for doing the right thing according to women. It is difficult for men to end a relationship for many reasons, one is that they are ending a friendship too. A lot of men feel they have to tell women they are gay or something similar as it tends to work out better if a woman loses interest in them opposed to themself losing interest. Ending a relationship by cheating on a woman is far less painful for a woman than ending it due to not seeing a future together as a result of lacking strength to cope with her depression etc. Cheating makes it much easier for a woman to move on, meaning she is likelier to be a friend, and creates a greater chance of being back together when things do change, because cheating is only a mistake.
DDO should have a forum section devoted to topics of sex and all things orgasmic

1) It will be ground zero for pornography rings forming on DDO2) Thett3, Royal, Lickdafoot, and TUF would spam the f*ck out of it with forums about "Whose the cuter couple"3) FREEDO would be banned for being unable to stop himself from posting tons of porn in the forums4) If young debaters wandered into the forum thread their precious innocence would be lost5) Such threads in the forum would range from "What is a Cleveland Steamer? " to "Rodeo Sex, Rape or not rape? " which would be frowned upon6) It would make thirteen year old girls on this site to post pornographic pictures of themselves7) It would make nineteen year old GUYS post pornographic pictures of themselves on DDO8) It would complicate my plans for a DDO Orgy when the apocalypse comes (See my debate about the issue)9) Inferno may come back and post nude pictures of himself to harass Royal or LDF. 10) Koopin, Thaddeus, or Thett3 might post nude pictures of themselves and their sexiness would crash the site11) Rick Santorum will be president in 2012 and since he wants to ban porn such a forum would thus make DDO a criminal organization12) Rick Santorum would actually be in the forum since his last name literally means the fecal byproduct of anal sex, so this site would cause Rick Santorum to be impeached since he would be participating in an illegal actionThat is all for now, I will now allow the Pro to make his case, other than that,
most people know right from wrong.

i am challenging my buddy Xxzefd to a debate about whether or not most people know right from wrong. i am not saying that objective morality does not exist. i do think that most people might know a little about right and wrong but not much as most peoples opinions on right and wrong change so much and every population contradicts almost every other population on moral issues. we even contradict each other. i think this is an open and shut case for me but my friend seems to think otherwise. im not going to take the time to capitalize every letter that needs to be capitalized. i will capitalize when it is helpful to the person reading it. there is no need to capitalize the first letter of every sentence. you know after a .? or ! that what follows is the beginning of a sentence. please do not judge grammar and punctuation as i am very under educated. that does not mean that i am less intelligent or that my views are automatically wrong as nothing you learn in school cant help you figure out anything about god and right and wrong. infact i would argue that education can warp a mind that would disprove theories about right and wrong and about god. dont know why i mentioned god as this debate has nothing to do with god.
most people know right from wrong.

Ahhh da.mn it friend! This has even me convinced. What if morality or our "sense of right and wrong" is an illusion? I ask this question because for one there is so many problems in this world. For instance, you have a VAST MAJORITY of the HUMAN RACE a "SLAVE" to "RELIGION"; and these people cannot even see the "right and wrong" in the own religious belief systems. they destroy and degrade one another all for "God" and gaining entrance into "Heaven". these people do not have a "morality" or a "sense of right and wrong". many see themselves as good people who are "righteous" but in the eyes of people like you and i they are "violent sociopaths/psychopaths". those that run our legal system do not have a "morality" or a "sense of right and wrong" they just get paid to push paperwork and get paid to either lock someone up, kill them or "let them go". the "truth" is just a "punchline" to them! the one's running or government and corporations and law, medical and military complexes do not have a morality or a sense of right and wrong. yet they see themselves as "outstanding citizens" who are righteous and have a "morality" or a sense of "right and wrong" what these people fail to understand is that they just are just like everybody else who lives off a "SELF MADE MORALITY" which is nothing more, nothing less then a "ILLUSION". this debate was a hard one but nevertheless entertaining!
most people know right from wrong.

after reading the arguments of Con and after careful observation of your argument in R3 i will attempt to provide you my rebuttals which might prove my points. For one I said "to tell you the truth MORALITY is NOT based on SCIENCE"! Morality is purely a philosophical concept. There is even evidence i have from http://undsci.berkeley.edu... that shows that morality cannot be taught using Science. But yes you do prove a point that by saying: "MOST people blindly accept MORALITIES at their mothers knee." And yes of course we have free will and this means we can make up our morality throughout time consciously and subconsciously. We can choose to do whatever we want but we must make sure to "Work how the World Works" or this leads to our "EVENTUAL FALL" from those we have hurt due to the violation of their self interests and STABILITY that we took away due to wronging them. We have to make sure that our morality measures up to our own personal standards of living. Is our morality "SAFE" and is it "STABILE" if your morality is purely based off someone elses then you are nothing more then a follower of a systematic form of control. If your morality does not go in accordance with your self interests then it's just SYSTEMATIC CONTROL designed to punish yourself at the benefit of others. Selflessness is as wrong as Selfishness, so you have to know where to draw the line. Some people cannot operate their own lives without a "Instruction Manual". Hell even some people that have an "organized morality" still somehow get themselves into excessive amounts of trouble with family and other strangers due to their inability to know how to control themselves; such people totally fail at keeping themselves stable. They do not know their place, or how to "play their cards right".
most people know right from wrong.

To tell you the truth, morality is totally not based on science! Morality is purely self made! The best kind of morality is the kind that you know will benefit you the most the kind that is made up by you. Our sense of right and wrong; is my friend, self created or changed throughout our lives both consciously/subconsciously to go in accordance with our self interests. You are literally right now making decisions everyday on your own. What you do right is determined by you whenever however it may be. What is wrong is how the decisions you made went against the self interests of other people. Now that's whats wrong! Or wrong could just be a decision you know you need to make that requires you to make a "great sacrifice" of some sort that definitely has strings attached to this "wrong" decision you have to make. There is no such thing as "Ultimate Morality" it's a bunch of crap . There is only self made morality that works the best. People, even in my eyes, that need an "Organized Morality" like they do with religion, politics and other things need someone to give them a serious "Reality Check" so they can learn to work how "The World Works" and how to properly be "Apart of Society".
most people know right from wrong.

i would have to say that most people do know what is right from wrong because it is a innate trait inherent in us all, well of course most except some sociopaths and or psychopaths who are insane and or seriously mentally ill. even atheists and agnostics like you and i have this innate ability! this of course nullifies the "wide scale" belief that morality comes from religion or belief in a diety or dieties. we all have this instinct to us and it is to just "know" right from wrong without question. we know to not kill because we know that murder destroys a persons life and can lead to life without chance of parole or the death penalty even if it didn't we wouldn't do it because we have a natural responsibility to co-exist peacefully. we know just alone by ourselves that rape is wrong. there is actually state and federal penalties to this specific wrong alone. hell there have been stories where what these wrongdoers do comes back to them in the same exact manner. i could go on and on about this. i know not to "rat" on someone because I know it's wrong....how do i know? i know because i have the innate ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
inferring God's existence is reasonable

con just ignored the miracles point. has he no response?con asks where God came from. good question, but we don't need an answer. all we need is the inference that it makes more sense that something came from something else, instead of from nothing, to have a decent answer. a cue stick is reasonable if we see a cue ball rolling to a bunch of balls. perhaps there's a person and another world behind that stick, but we have no way of knowing and it's really irrelvant. NDEs. so con thinks there's a common story imbedded in our DNA for when we are near death? i think it's actually kinda silly, that idea. it's true that the dying brain is a great alternative theory for what it going on, but it doesn't explain the commonality.
inferring God's existence is reasonable

-thermodynamics (or general laws of energy if i'm stating thermodynaics wrong) and uncaused cause. energy.... it goes from high to low. our universe is going to the low end. it started at the high end. where did that high end come from? from something other than a higher energy? and the same goes for the uncaused cause. something coming from something else makes more sense than something coming from nothing. is GOd the uncaused cause? if he is, why can't the uinverse? well, the universe is like a clock that was set to tick. something had to set it.... that's what it looks like. or a cue ball that is rolling to break the balls... it looks like there had to be a stick. the stick begs the question of where it came from, but we have to draw a line and say there's a mystery.... we infer the stick simply because somehitng coming from something else makes more sense than something coming from nothing. there was nothing then something happened to hte nothingness. that's what it looks like. for energy or the uncaused cause, as far as we can see there was nothing, then something. we can have theoeries about multiple universes etc or an accordian universe but these are just theories. what we see is that it was nothing then something.,,, that's our best observation. id say energy and uncaused causes both lend itself to saying there is a God to explain it. -Near death experiences. most atheists are no longer atheist after these. it strikes me as the most straightforward explanation to say a person died and went to the after life if that's what they say happened, cause that's what looks like it happened. ive seen atheists who insist the most straightforward explaination is that there is a chemical thing going on. i dont agree. i dont think there's a version of the afterlife inbedded in people's genes, but that's what happens on a common scale. it'd be one thing if only some people experienced it that way, but everyone who has the eperience says the same thing. there's tunnels, people say "it's not your time to die" etc. how is this imbedded in our DNA? how is this common? some people say ketamine gives NDE's. but they dont. they give example which sometimes are like NDEs. so it's not reproducable as far as we know. -what appear to be miracles. these things dont happen to atheists. the burden is on them to show similar things happening to them. -complexity. look at an eye, or a watch, etc. this is the weakest point but it is evidence nonetheless. i realize evolution and billions of years could cause complexity that we see.