BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists.

RebuttalsMy argumentsPart 1: The Kalam Cosmological argumentCon says: If everything that begins to exist has a cause then pro must firstly prove that the universe began to exist whilst explaining how this proof doesn't apply to God. Only then can they consider the Kalam argument valid.The premise 'Everything that begins to exist has a cause' doesn't apply to God because God never began to exist.Part 3: The Thomistic Cosmological argumentCon says: As for the Thomistic argument, if all things in motion require a mover, then for God to be in motion, God must have been moved meaning that C is impossible. Additionally P2 makes P2 impossible because if an infinite regression of events is impossible, then not all things in motion can have a mover, since the first mover must have magically stopped moving (this is impossible).Con's point is only valid if he can prove that for God to create something, he needs to be in motion. This hasn't been established and Con has the burden of proof to establish it.Con's argumentsCon says: How can everything exist if it had no creation? Well, think about it, if god exists without creation so can everything. The reason that this seems insane is the same reason that God seems insane, since a non-created entity seems so inconceivable to the human mind but this is due to the limitations of an animal's perception of reality (and humans are certainly animals). Con provides absolutely no reason to think this is insane, he just baselessly asserts it. Why should we think something is insane when there is no reason to think such things? Con says: How can everything have existed forever... How is infinite regression possible? The answer to this question is the same answer to the question as to how god could have existed for an infinite amount of time without origin. Whatever God came from, which is considered to be a point in the past so infinitely long ago that we consider God to never have had a beginning, can easily be transferred to the atheist's view of everything having existed forever without a beginning, creation or origin. The answer is that God hasn't existed for an infinite amount of time, and an infinite regress of events is impossible. God existed before time, so his past is finite just like the time's past.Con says: So now comes to question, if God's existence and non-existence are equally probable which should one believe in? This is where Ockham's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org......'s_razor) comes into play. Ockham states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. The justification is that Possible explanations can become needlessly complex. It is coherent, for instance, to add the involvement of Leprechauns to any explanation, but Occam's razor would prevent such additions, unless they were necessary.Con has given us absolutely no reason to think that God existence and non-existence are equally probable, and he never actually comes to a conclusion with the point about Occam's razor.Conclusion-Con fails to make any sound arguments of his own.-Con fails to come up with a sound objection to any of my arguments.
God exists.

I didn't notice that the burden of proof was shared but since it is shared let me proceed to ultimately demolish the argumentation of Pro.If everything that begins to exist has a cause then pro must firstly prove that the universe began to exist whilst explaining how this proof doesn't apply to God. Only then can they consider the Kalam argument valid.As for the Thomistic argument, if all things in motion require a mover, then for God to be in motion, God must have been moved meaning that C is impossible. Additionally P2 makes P2 impossible because if an infinite regression of events is impossible, then not all things in motion can have a mover, since the first mover must have magically stopped moving (this is impossible).Since the burden of proof is shared I shall now strive to prove God's existence being so improbable that one would be left to either completely convert to atheism or to be left so doubtful of theism and deism that they go insane.How can everything exist if it had no creation? Well, think about it, if god exists without creation so can everything. The reason that this seems insane is the same reason that God seems insane, since a non-created entity seems so inconceivable to the human mind but this is due to the limitations of an animal's perception of reality (and humans are certainly animals).How can everything have existed forever... How is infinite regression possible? The answer to this question is the same answer to the question as to how god could have existed for an infinite amount of time without origin. Whatever God came from, which is considered to be a point in the past so infinitely long ago that we consider God to never have had a beginning, can easily be transferred to the atheist's view of everything having existed forever without a beginning, creation or origin. So now comes to question, if God's existence and non-existence are equally probable which should one believe in? This is where Ockham's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor) comes into play. Ockham states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. The justification is that Possible explanations can become needlessly complex. It is coherent, for instance, to add the involvement of Leprechauns to any explanation, but Occam's razor would prevent such additions, unless they were necessary.
It is okay to debate using "false" definitions

"The NON-Fair or non-Just examples would not apply."Yes. These troll debates are exceptions to the rest, and I have proved that within some debates, it is not "okay to debate using false definitions"."If the definition and assertion of the debate is circular that would make it non-debatable is being fallacious would be another argument. But it is acceptable to use the terms as defined." You just contradicted yourself. "Fallacious" is the opposite of "Acceptable". And yes, it would lead to a completely different argument, which is my case--a debate concerning god's existence shouldn't be over whether the word "existence" means "blue hippos pretending to be avatar" or not. Because then the contender would probably be unprepared and think the debate very unfair, and thus, not "okay".Oh, and thank you too. I like being funny! :PVote con!
It is okay to debate using "false" definitions

I want to think CON for reiterating my opinion. In the example I gave in Round 1, The Fair examples CON gave would apply. The NON-Fair or non-Just examples would not apply. The title for the debate is not long enough to outline the entire Pro position. But reference round 1 where I state "I take the pro position that if one begins a debate defining the terms this is acceptable. If the definition and assertion of the debate is circular that would make it non-debatable is being fallacious would be another argument. But it is acceptable to use the terms as defined. " And even when referencing this debate my opponent states "Had you defined "false" as "pink fluffy unicorns", that would be not okay. This debate is unfair. However, your definition is still pretty close to the actual definition of "false", which is "not true or correct". If the majority of the speakers do not accept a definition, it is more than likely incorrect. " This close definition would also be a fair assessment of the Debate. org historical example I gave. Example is taken from comment section of this debate . http://www.debate.org...
It is okay to debate using "false" definitions

Of course, the person who accepts bows down low to the instigator's definitions, but you never specified that these definitions were the instigator's definitions. They could be the the contender's horrid definitions. While it may be "okay to debate using false definitions" defined by the instigator, as the person who accepts agrees by default, if the person who accepts posts further false arguments, it is terrible and as you said, "would require consensus to move forward". Now, I stress the "may" in maybe when I said it is "okay". There are cases where trolls put in terrible definitions, and noobs accept it and state that the trolls have well, trolled, and they aren't acceptable. Of course the trolls' definition isn't acceptable! It's wrong! If I started this debate and defined the topic as I did in the first round, and another tried to rebut me by saying those definitions are totally wrong, terrible, troll, and people should vote him for spelling and grammar because the troll had terrible definitions, and the troll responded with "well people accept the rules and the definitions when laid out!", this would be unfair and terrible, and would lead to an argument concerning the rules and definitions rather than the actual debate. If terrible definitions can be accepted, then terrible rules can be too. However, this is not "okay", alright, common-everyday seen "good" in any way! One great example is Rational_Thinker's string of social experiments. He defeated the almighty imabench by stressing on the "JUST" when he said "round one is just for acceptance", and he defeated another debater who argued the rules were unfair by saying "by accepting this debate you have accepted the rules." Yes. This is true. But this is no way "okay". There is no way for the opponent to win, by accepting the near impossible-to-follow-rules. As the contender stated, "If all 8,000 characters of my argument had to be typed up in an aBcD fashion, I would take hours and hours, and even after that, one mistake could cost my whole argument!" And thus this is unfair. Another example is this debate. Had you defined "false" as "pink fluffy unicorns", that would be not okay. This debate is unfair. However, your definition is still pretty close to the actual definition of "false", which is "not true or correct". If the majority of the speakers do not accept a definition, it is more than likely incorrect. My horrid "definition" I gave in the first round is "false", and it would be horrid to debate on that topic. In conclusion, yes, a noob accepting a troll debate with horrid definitions has to follow the rules laid out, but in no way is it "okay". It is mean, it is bad, and it shouldn't be done.
It is okay to debate using "false" definitions

Well done but I don't concede anything. If after the debate begins you argue for redefining the other terms I reject your definitions. But when you accepted the debate you accepted the definitions I outlined. When we disagree with the definitions then the debate becomes an argument over semantics. But I argue Pro that if someone accepts a debate they are agreeing to the terms outlined. Language has multiple definitions for the same word. So being clear in a debate is key. Not because if I call something a hydrocarbonation that it is logical wrong to say "it smells sweet". Rose by any other name smells the same. Logical reasoning should be separate from the language used. We only agree on definitions to make sure we are talking about the same things and to illustrate as clear as possible what our conceptualizations are. To summarize my rebuttal. You accepted to debate therefore you agree to debate using the word for false as I defined it. Which you have done. Redefining the other words is open to debate and would require consensus to move forward. But to accept the debate than argue the definitions Pro Defined would be senseless. You could however make the case for the debate and definitions being circular. In which case I would say one should not choose to debate such debaters.
It is okay to debate using "false" definitions

It is not okay to debate using definitions "not accepted by the majority of speakers."It would be completely unfair to the person trying to debate on a topic if his opponent went all wacky and completely altered the meaning of the topic. For an example, I will use this debate. That's right. THIS. DEBATE.All right, let's see...."It is okay to debate using "false" definitions". Well, you already defined "False", so I will twist away at the other words.I define "it" as a godly animal known as the unicorn.I define "is" as dancing around happily.I define "okay" as "are very"I define "to" as "sad".So so far, it's "The unicron dancing around happily are very sad".I define debate as a conjunction used in the same context as "and".I define using as "a vegetable known as the turnip".I define definitions as "but it is very fat".And now, the sentence has massively transformed, using "false" definitions....(drum roll please)...."The unicron dancing around happily are very sad and a vegetable known as the turnip is not accepted by the majority of speakers but it is very fat." There is NO WAY this statement is true, as it contradicts itself TWICE, has irrelevant information, and doesn't make any sense grammaritically. In conclusion con has won this debate, with no way for pro to even have a chance.You see what I mean about unfairness? Yep. You just got hit with a bucket-load of it.
It is okay to debate using "false" definitions

I've debated another member and I see them getting some heat for using a definition for Atheism that others disagree with. I think this is unfair to them. I take the pro position that if one begins a debate defining the terms this is acceptable. If the definition and assertion of the debate is circular that would make it non-debatable is being fallacious would be another argument. But it is acceptable to use the terms as defined. Con can begin arguing in first round. "False" definition being the definition of a word not accepted by the majority of speakers.
All debate.org members should ask The Cleaners to review their debates!

My position for this debate is that "The Cleaners" is not good at reviewing debates. My position is that "The Cleaners" will indeed have a bias. As a group, they came together for a reason, a common goal or purpose (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...). To have a purpose, they have a goal to complete (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...). To have a goal is to have a preconceived notion of belief. Quite simply, I believe "The Cleaners" to be nothing more than the internet arm of the liberal media. As such, they will bring ruin to all that is good and holy, establish and New World Order, bringing on Armageddon and destroying the world. That last paragraph was all farce, I have a ton of characters to use and thought I'd put in some craziness. Continuing on. I would appreciate if my opponent would expound a bit on phrases like "intelligent" and "excellent advice". Both statements need quantification before they are true. Are we comparing "The Cleaners" to a chicken, if so I would hazard a guess that they are more intelligent and would give me excellent advice. Conversely, are we comparing them to James Carville (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)? If so, then I would like to compare their IQ and debate histories. I would like to again thank my opponent for this topic. If this was just a way to show that "The Cleaners" are there to help, I hope I entertained some people.
All debate.org members should ask The Cleaners to review their debates!

Any debaters, new or old, should request that The Cleaners review their debates. We are a large group of intelligent, unbiased debaters who can give excellent advice, and who vote without any ulterior motives. We will also explain each vote in great detail, allowing you to improve as a debater. If your voter turnout is low, or if you believe you are a victim of unfair voting, or if you just want some comments, you should send me a message, or post in our forum topics. Just click "Forum" up at the top, under the category "debate.org", and find any topic with the words "The Cleaners" and post! We'll see it, and we'll respond!
All debate.org members should ask The Cleaners to review their debates!

My opponent continues to both astound and admonish. Anytime a debater can make a reader have an emotion that begins with "a", you know they are a good debater. I know that I, personally, have learned a great deal about "The Cleaners", debate.org, and the dark underbelly of this website. I have saved this final point to be the crux of my reasoning of why not all debate.org members should ask"The Cleaners" to review their debates. This point is one of my favorites to use, mainly because it contradicts itself in actuality, yet remains true non-the-less. Never make a definitive statement. Or, as my English/Debate teacher once told me, "Never, ever, under any circumstance, ever make a definitive statement!" I laughed and asked if that was not possibly the most definitive statement, and she asked me if I cared to debate that. I did not. So, to this day, I don't know whether it is or not. That story aside, the saying stays true. I am willing to bet that "Josh the terrorist" should not ask "The Cleaners" to review his debates, as they would be none to kind and biased towards him. I would also guess that members of "The Cleaners" should not review their own debates, as a self-bias would be in place. I humbly suggest that though it would be a good idea for some, possibly even most, debate.org members to ask "The Cleaners" to review their debates, but the statement that "All" should is just taking it over the line. I thank my opponent for his interesting topic and I hope he had as much fun as I did turning a "billboard" of such into a debate. I know I did and look forward to his own group of "The Cleaners" to go through this debate and tear me apart on my rambling and magniloquence. This has been fun.
All debate.org members should ask The Cleaners to review their debates!

I am very pleased that my opponent continues to offer me opportunities to eliminate misconceptions about The Cleaners. The only point my opponent made in his entire response above, is dissent. I do not blame my opponent for making severely faulty points, as I myself have not presented the information necessary for him to make a valid conclusion. The first flaw in my opponent's response is his incorrect belief that The Cleaners is led by a single person. In reality, The Cleaners is not led by anyone at all. My position is merely that of a person who brings people together, not a leader of any sort. I do, however, have responsibility over accepting new members. I'm sure my opponent would like to argue this point, but since I would like for more productive and novel responses, I will offer a preliminary counterargument later on. Since I have established that there is no leader, I will move on to the next point: Expulsion. The simple answer is that we have no such thing. There is simply no act that a Cleaner can do to result in his expulsion, and no reason for him to be expelled. If a Cleaner decides to go through all my debates and votebomb me, and offers explanations for each and every vote, he will still not be expelled from the Cleaners. There is simply nothing that can result in expulsion. To add onto that point, Cleaners are free to leave and not be associated with us at any time. To be a Cleaner is dangerous, for all the Cleaners are currently targeted by Josh the terrorist to be votebombed. However, the Cleaners who are here endure that risk because they place debate, voting, commenting, and increasing the productivity of debate.org well above their own win ratios. The final point of my opponent, that dissent will lead to problems that spill over to the debates we are reviewing: This is impossible. Dissent is not an issue because each Cleaner is his own judge and jury. Dissent is simply impossible because Cleaners have absolutely nothing to argue about. I will now offer a preliminary counterpoint: If I am in charge of membership, am I not in a position of power? The answer is "no". Not only do I consult with the Cleaners about a new applicant, I have also structured the Cleaners in a way such that the requirements for joining are near 0. Being a good Cleaner is the same as being a good participant on debate.org in general. Thus, if you are a good member of debate.org, there really should be no other requirements for being part of The Cleaners. In that case, why would it be a position of power if the bar is set so low? I'm more like a doorman instead of a bouncer. I'll not only open the door wide open for you, but I'll do it with a smile. However, I do have an underhanded tactic I use as a sort of "audition". Before new members can be "official", I tell them to Clean 5 debates that have recently ended and are in need of attention (only have a few voters). I essentially use them as "non Cleaner Cleaners" :) Please, I look forward to my opponent's response.
All debate.org members should ask The Cleaners to review their debates!

I hope that "The Cleaners" will "clean" this debate as a representation of how they would "clean" others. My opponent claims that his group has safeguards built in against bias. That by their rules of explanation for any and all votes, they are held to a standard for how they voted. Yet, he negates these points by ending with the "creme de la creme" for his argument of that "The Cleaners" do not vote as a group, but as individuals. By voting as individuals, they are no longer held to the standard of the group, the only tenuous leash for their voting frenzy is that they do not want to be expelled from "The Cleaners". This kind of action reminds one much more of a gang, where the members are kept in line by the fear of rejection. What will these members do as soon as the leader of "The Cleaners" decides that a debater that they traditionally side with can be given slack. Or if one of "The Cleaners" own number switch allegiances on an issue and throw the group out of whack? "The Cleaners" represent a group that may seem like a good idea, but they are in fact a sleeping volcano ready to erupt. When that eruption occurs, would it be prudent to have "The Cleaners" as your measuring tool of how well you've done? I submit that no, it would not. So, once again, it is with a heavy heart that I must disagree and say that "The Cleaners" should not be asked by all debate. org members to review their debates.