BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pascal's Wager is not a convincing reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

"Firstly, Con's job is to show why the Wager is convincing. But more importantly, this argument was presented to show that Pascal's Wager treats the two options as semi-equals erroneously. If I can show that the probability of a God existing is low, then one half of Pascal's Wager becomes probabilistically untenable. That is the argument. " Pascal's Wager is focused on the event that you should believe in God vs. disbelief, not whether he exists. "The point of this argument is to examine possible characteristics of God, since the Bible is, at best, mixed on the matter. I showed that either configuration discounts the validity of the Wager, since disbelief will likely not harm you in either way. This is far from irrelevant. " Pascal's Wager focuses on faith in God, not his characteristics. "Where is this Holy Spirit? Where is the evidence for it? I've never met or heard from this Spirit. Moreover, even if you suppose that this argument has any coherence or veracity, it does not affirm Con's position; it does not prove that the Wager is convincing! In fact, it actually shows that something else, not the Wager, is what does the convincing. " That's why you can't make a valid decision, God must choose you.
Pascal's Wager is not a convincing reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

Con does not really say anything here, so bear with me, floor. This is going to be difficult. A few notes:1) The rules I presented, and Con agreed to, require Round 2 to be solely constructive material, with no rebuttals. Con ignores this, which is grounds for the awarding of the Conduct point to Pro. 2) I will delve more carefully into this, but Con does not really give an argument. His arguments are, literally, A) Trust in God, or B) Your point is irrelevant. I am unsure whether he simply does not understand my points, has not read them, or does not grasp the prompt, but these arguments don't work. 3) Just extend my constructives through here. Hopefully Con will actually rebut my points in the next round, as he was not expected to in this round. RebuttalThe best way to go about this is to quote from Con, and respond. "1. There is no point in attempting to show that God doesn't exist as Pascal's Wager is focused on why you should believe in God."Firstly, Con's job is to show why the Wager is convincing. But more importantly, this argument was presented to show that Pascal's Wager treats the two options as semi-equals erroneously. If I can show that the probability of a God existing is low, then one half of Pascal's Wager becomes probabilistically untenable. That is the argument. "3. You try to show how inconsistent God's character is, which is also irrelevant."The point of this argument is to examine possible characteristics of God, since the Bible is, at best, mixed on the matter. I showed that either configuration discounts the validity of the Wager, since disbelief will likely not harm you in either way. This is far from irrelevant. "Not all religions have a concept of heaven and hell."This is true, but many religions, including Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc. have concepts that are analogous to Hell, which is determined based on faith and works, like Christianity [1]. "The conviction of the Holy Spirit should be more than enough to tell you that the Judeo-Christian God exists."Where is this Holy Spirit? Where is the evidence for it? I've never met or heard from this Spirit. Moreover, even if you suppose that this argument has any coherence or veracity, it does not affirm Con's position; it does not prove that the Wager is convincing! In fact, it actually shows that something else, not the Wager, is what does the convincing. "Do you honestly believe that your love for others is a product of chemicals?"Yes. Yes I do. Science unequivocally agrees with me [2]. "It's better to trust your intuition and trust in God's revelation of himself because, on the other hand, you could go to hell..."Two responses: 1) I have never had such an intuition, and 6/7 of the world shares this with me. I have no reason to trust in "God's revelation," which seems quite inadequate and riddled with errors for a supposedly omnipotent being. 2) Congratulations. You have just restated the Wager. Now try to prove that it is convincing. Sources:1. http://www.neatorama.com...2. http://www.youramazingbrain.org...
Pascal's Wager is not a convincing reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

1. There is no point in attempting to show that God doesn't exist as Pascal's Wager is focused on why you should believe in God (not for scientific reasons). It seems like in point 3, you try to show how inconsistent God's character is which is also irrelevant. If you receive the conviction of the Holy Spirit, there is more reason to believe in God than to reject him. Now you could argue "Well what about Buddhism? Or hinduism? Or all the other religions?" The problem is that not all religions can be treated the same. Not all religions have a concept of heaven and hell nor do they base salvation on faith in beliefs. Some religions don't even believe in salvation, so it's erroneous to compare the Judeo-Christian God with other religions. On top of that, the conviction of the Holy Spirit should be more than enough to tell you that the Judeo-Christian God exists. Now you can argue "Well science hasn't really proven God's existence.." This is because science cannot "prove" everything. For example, do you honestly believe that your love for others is a product of chemicals? If so, where is the evidence for that kind of love? If there's none, it means that we should also doubt the existence of Love right? If we are to doubt the existence of love why love at all? It's better to trust your intuition and trust in God's revelation of himself because on the other hand, you could go to hell into believing that your smart enough to figure his creation when your not.
Pascal's Wager is not a convincing reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

I will be arguing that Pascal's Wager is not a convincing reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I will be discussing the calculus involved with the wager, characterizations of the Judeo-Christian God, and results of belief based upon the wager. Pascal's Wager, for this round, shall be characterized as the argument that because belief in God holds infinitely good consequences (i. e. Heaven), and disbelief has very bad consequences (i. e. Hell), you should believe in God. The Judeo-Christian God shall be defined as the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of the Universe, as characterized in the Bible. (Note that I am defining characteristics of God, not caveating his existence).
Drinking Age Remaining at 21

Once again, my opponent has forfeited this round. I am disappointed that this debate was unable to run its full course, but I am sure that my opponent has his/her reasons for not submitting further arguments. Since this is the last round, I'd like to recap my arguments up to this point: -Limiting alcohol to those at the age of 25 or above prevents the usage of alcohol by people whose brains have not fully developed yet. Alcohol is known to cause damage to the brain while it is still developing; by limiting it to those whose brains are fully developed, we prevent unnecessary brain damage. -By setting the age cap at 25, we severely restrict the supply of alcohol to those who are underage by even today's laws, since many (if not most) underage drinkers get their alcohol from those under the age of 25. -If you are not fully mature yet (i.e. under the age of 25), you may not be fully capable of using alcohol responsibly. By limiting alcohol use to those at or above the age of 25, we ensure that a larger portion of alcohol consumers are mentally capable of drinking responsibly.
Drinking Age Remaining at 21

The exact same arguments apply the the 21-year age limit, but yet you have no opposition to that. Granted, no law prohibiting anything can be 100% effective - that's nearly impossible, and it's flat out unrealistic to ask for it. Even today, with only a 21-year age limit, we still see teenagers, well below the age limit, find ways to get alcohol, but do we repeal the 21-year requirement on the basis that "people can still find ways around it"? No, of course not - I'd be very interested in seeing anyone successfully argue that. We could apply the same arguments - "if people want X they will find a way to get X" to anything, and get absolutely nowhere. That's no place to start from though; we make laws prohibiting what we know and can prove to be wrong in the hope that the laws we make will have at least some effect. Speaking of teenagers being able to get alcohol, do you know where they often get it from? People not that much older than them - anyone they know 21 years or older (who they are far more likely to have connections with than someone of the age 25 or older) is a potential supplier. Raise the age limit to 25 and you've taken out a major alcohol source for those who are too young to drink even under the current law.
Drinking Age Remaining at 21

Even if you remove the source of alcohol for college students by eliminating access by older students, it is inevitable that they will find another source. If people want to drink, they will find a way to get alcohol. The culture in college is influenced heavily by drinking and partying, like you said, so they will find a to get alcohol, as they do now. The "my brother bought me alcohol" idea can actually still apply if you increase the legal drinking age. There are brothers that are over the age of 25. Even if you do not have a direct connection to a source, it is logical to think that a type of a black market could form in college communities to make alcohol more accessible. For example, marijuana has been illegal, ignoring the recent legalization in a couple states, and yet it is still readily available to people on college campuses and other locations. If people want alcohol, they will find a way to get it.
Drinking Age Remaining at 21

Actually, most people aren't married by the age of 25 [1]. Currently, the U.S. national median marriage age sits at around 29 years old for men, and nearly 27 for women - on average around 3 or so years older than that critical 25 year age limit. These aren't necessarily mature, grown adults - remember, 24-year-olds are still people who are relatively new to the world and living on their own. After such a small time, they may not have developed the maturity and responsibility that we expect from people in control of the decision over whether to consume a material known to end lives. There's one other interesting side to this - the need to keep the age groups separate. At the age of 21, most people who choose that path in life are a junior (ish) in college, people who still interact with all those younger than themselves, those who do not have legal access to alcohol - people even more (potentially) immature, and at a far more critical part of their brain's development. It is well known that when one age group with access to alcohol, drugs, etc. can share with a younger age group, they often will; look no farther than the classic "my brother bought me [drugs, alcohol, etc.]". Now imagine if all those college students, students too young to be drinking even under the 21-year cap, have the ability to easily get alcohol from an older student? We already have the results; about four out of five college students drink alcohol, and about half of those students consume it through binge drinking [2], which is not exactly a practice noted as responsible. Where do these college students get their alcohol from? It's almost certain that some large portion of it comes from older students who buy it for them. All of this causes massive problems, of course, ranging from health concerns - almost 900,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are injured per year as result of alcohol consumption - to academic - 25% of college students report academic problems caused by alcohol - and of course the brain damage caused by all this drinking. The answer to this problem is simple: remove the alcohol source - the older students - and you remove the vast majority of these alcohol related problems. Raise the cap to 25, and the alcohol supply for most of these underage drinkers dries up almost immediately, taking away the health problems, the academic concerns, and the brain damage issues. [1] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org... [2] http://www.niaaa.nih.gov...
Drinking Age Remaining at 21

I see your points about brain development. As you and I both said, the brain doesn't fully develop until about age 25, so there is risk of developmental damage and making poor decisions. My question is, is it socially realistic to raise the drinking age to 25? At age 25, out of those who have gone to college, most have already received their undergraduate degree. Those who have gone on to grad school or furthered their education are often done with school too. At age 25, a large percent of the population are living independently and in the "real world" making a living for themselves. Is it really reasonable to restrict people that are old enough to be fully functioning in the world as "real adults" as if they are children? Many people at the age of 25 are married or even have children. If the drinking age was 25, it would be saying that someone is mature enough to have a family or make a major business decision, but they are not mature enough to have a drink of alcohol.
Drinking Age Remaining at 21

I will be arguing that the drinking age should be raised to 25.Currently, the drinking age is set at 21 as per U.S. National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, according to Wikipedia. Technically, this law didn't actually prohibit alchohol consumption by those 21 and under, it only prohibited those under 21 from buying and publicly owning any kind of alcholic beverage. This drinking limit is generally designed to prevent minors, and those just above the age of adulthood, from drinking, due to both the hazards of having young, inexperienced teenagers drinking alcohol, not to mention the damage caused to a brain that is still developing.As you have said, the brain is still developing until around 25 or so (in reality, it varies slightly with gender; I will be assuming a genral 25-year cap for the sake of argument). As you have pointed out, the consumption of alcholol can cause irrevocable damage to the developing brain. But look at it from another perspective: can those still with an immature mindset really be trusted to drink responsibly?Consider that many adults today still have issues with drinking when they should not be - in many cases, this quickly spirals into addiction, or a form of self medication, or worse. Research data from the NIAAA (National institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism) shows that 87.6 percent of adults report using alcohol, but only around 7.2 percent of this same age group had an alcohol use disorder [1]. In other words, the vast majority of normal, responsible adults are fully capable of using alcohol safely.Can the same be said of those between the ages of 21 and 25 though? Remember, the brain is still developing. During this time, you are still not fully mature, and are not as capable of making the same level of rational decisions, and still lack some essential inhibitions (such as inhibitions against drinking yourself unconscious). During this age range, people are vulnerable to the influences of alcohol, yet they still lack the maturity to restrain themselves from using alcohol irresponsible.To fully prevent the risk posed to developing minds, and the risk posed by the irresponsible useage of alcohol by a mind partially incapable of using it reponsible, the only effective method is to raise the alcohol age limit to at least 25.[1] http://www.niaaa.nih.gov...
Resolved: Development of third world regions is a priority over military stabilization.

Closing: I would first like to point out that the CON has failed time and time again to argue my most important point, that attempts at military stabilisation don't achieve anything beyond chaos and instability and historically have never achieved anything beyond chaos and instability. While I have cited numerous historical examples of the disastrous effect that military intervention has on the recipient country, the CON has offered no practical examples to support his position. Although it is tempting to argue that there exists a middle ground solution between humanitarian aid and military intervention, the reality is that there is no such practical solution. Indeed I think it is misleading to suggest that such a solution really exists. In one case we have use of military force, the other we don't. The harsh reality is that there is only so much we can do. Our options are far from limitless. Purely humanitarian and developmental aid is a far more attractive and less messy option than military stabilisation, one that will help build positive, and more equal relationships between nations.
Resolved: Development of third world regions is a priority over military stabilization.

I should have added an extra round to defend, my fault. In closing, The judges can see by my three contentions and the attempt to call into question their relevance by PRO that while the PRO would stand had he not have forgotten one thing which I have attempted to make abundantly clear throughout the debate. I have argued the resolution that military stabilization is a priority over developmental aid. This is not a polar issue as PRO has attempted to make it. I argue for neither nation building or war. I have argued that we must stabilize a region and secure it from threat so that we can provide the necessary aid to these people, not that we should provide no aid and only troops.
Resolved: Development of third world regions is a priority over military stabilization.

Rebuttal No.1- contention A1: Firstly, as has been proven time and time again throughout history, military stabilisation does not work. Attempts at military stabilisation would only exacerbate violence and terrorism in said region. * I also don't see the relevance of Lesley Ann Warner's views on the results of the US's military actions. Aside from being a particularly vague quote, her comments are a matter of opinion and highly debatable . Rebuttal No.2-sub A1: Military Aid is very different to military stabilisation. Passage does not necessarily support military stabilisation rather encourages a more comprehensive approach to African security. Rebuttal No. 3-sub A3: Once again this does not explicitly advocate military stabilisation. Rebuttal No.4-contention B.2 , sub B1 Sub B2 Sub B3: Chinese investments have nothing to do with whether military stabilisation should be a priority,. It seems like you are advocating the use of military stabilisation as a way to secure resources for the US. This as well as being morally questionable, is completely irrelevant to the debate. Also I would like to add that the US already has huge investments in oil, gas and mineral resources around Africa. Competition is not an issue. Rebuttal No.5-contention C1: once again, the US simply haven't successfully militarily stabilised any nation. It doesn't work. To say that (quote) "We have proved time and time again that we have done it and it has worked" Is completely wrong. I also have never seen a situation where a country with US troops on the ground has flourished. Vietnam, Lebanon , Somalia , Iraq, Afghanistan . Disaster after disaster. All attempts at military stabilisation. By dropping bombs instead of food and supplies you create anti-US sentiment and perpetuate a vicious circle of violence. The solutions to internal conflict must come from internal sources. Lasting change comes from within a nation and it's government, not from foreign militaries.
Resolved: Development of third world regions is a priority over military stabilization.

My rebuttal will consist of the conflict of each contention. I don't have a lot of time or energy right now, so it won't be perfect. Reb. 1 You are predicating this argument on the assumption that I am arguing the extreme. The stated resolve is that of priority. Not exclusive action. The cited example is a situation of nation building. I am arguing the contrary. I stand that development aid is necessary, but not the primary objective. Security must come first. Reb. 2 While your point is valid, one must understand that the militarization of aid is a necessary evil if one would want to provide developmental aid (see my definition). The regions in which this would apply would be a very embattled and dangerous area. It would be detrimental to place development supplies and services without protection. I end with a rhetorical question. What good is a school for the needy if it is attacked by militants with no protection? Reb. 3 Similarly to the second contention. I believe you mistake this debate as Iraq War versus response to Haiti disaster. The definitions, which stand as you provided no alternatives, are imperative to this debate. Developmental aid is a godsend to these people, but we must provide security and protection for these people and their life-saving supplies. What kind of people would be, in the first-world capacity, if we gave them the means of life, only to let them be murdered by armed extremists?
the 9/11 conspiracy

Well my main argument is the mechanics and science of these events. More of a technical side of reality. But I'm willing to break the 4th wall for the sake of a good debate on a controversial matter. I assume because your argument lacks a logical stand point because in essence that is what the 9/11 conspiracy is, lacking in logical and critical thinking. Everything that official reports and independent investigations say are legitimate and true. My issue (besides how theories completely negate evidence and science) is that conspiracy theorist jump to conclusions. I want establish this, asking questions, and being skeptical about what really happened is completely natural and justifiable. I had a lot of questions as well when this happened. But what I found is that conspiracy theorist don't like getting the answers to these questions. They like to believe that this was all setup by some higher power controlling the world. Now when I had questions about the official report I did my research. As what any curious person should do. And I found everything that I once questioned, it took me maybe a couple minutes to answer some of my questions. Why doesn't anyone who has some questions about 9/11 do this? It takes maybe a week or 2. But they just won't. They rather just look at biased videos that set the mood in a spooky environment that deepen these deluded believes. Its an "alternate reality" stated by author Jonathan Kay. An easy way out. Just because they simply can't accept the fact that planes can slam into huge building. Now as for my rebuttal. First don't put that much faith into NORAD. I would love to sit here and tell you or air defense system is fully efficient, but its just not. Here's a swell statistic for you. In 2000 of all the 67 scrambles of jet fighter to apprehend a suspicious aircraft on 1, and I repeat ONE happened in U.S. territory. And do you know how long it took for that the fighter jet to successfully intercept this ONE plane, 76 minutes. Don't give NORAD that much credit I can explain the building collapse but I have a question for you? After this debate, or if you want to allow this debate to continue outside the realms of 5 rounds. If I answer all of your questions and prove this theory wrong, will you actually change your mind? Because my goal is just to disprove these deluded claims, but if I can change your mind about this whole think I would love to just to help you see what truly happened but if I can't, then I accept that