BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Problem of evil is a good argument against God and Theodicy.

I just want to stress that any atheist(religious skeptic) voters please read without voting with utter disregard of reason to the atheistic side.(Yvette, I'm talking to you) Very good on the large part, but the overall syllogism is flawed. You assume that omnibenevolence is by a human moral standard. Omnibenevolence literally means ‘always fair -ness' most definitions call it 'all loving' but my point applies to both terms. 'fairness' 'love' 'UUE' by definition, within moral relativism, are all relative and subjective. What is fair for one is not necessarily fair for another. What is lovely for one is not necessarily lovely for another. What is evil for one is not necessarily evil for another. They fail the moral 'categorical imperative'[Kant. et al.]. Their application to all human subjects let alone divine subjects(Whose moral standard you have no objective way of knowing!). Give me one example of what is universally evil, fair or lovely. Rape, child starvation, unneeded slaughter, natural disasters are evils only to people who share your moral belief. God may see these things as love, prove he doesn't. You can't. To say omnibenevolence of an omnipotent figure is impossible is absurd. You assume that the figures moral code is your moral code! With your hypothetical situation that the Christian god exists you assume that his divine omniscience morality is like yours. His morality might be better than ours, after all he's omniscience and you're not. Pro gave his Problem of evil to any 'omni'type god not necessarily the Christian god but he is welcome cite biblical scripture of God promising to help all those that ask for it. Eg. Revelation 21:6, commonly used out of context by atheists attacking Christianity with the POE. ->Other argument What is good/fair/lovely is just the absence of what is malicous/evil/bad. There is a ethical scale of what is good or evil, remove the furthest pole of what is evil, exterminationism for example, the scale will shift. If I remove all evil acts you will be left with only good acts, correct? What is good will lose its meaning when there is no opposing standard. All actions will become simply neutral, nothing will be good because nothing will be bad. In a sentence: Goodness as an absolute it's fully consistent and reliant on other postulates concerning moral value. ->On the Burden of Proof. (forgive me, but if I ignored that paragraph I'd look defeated) "And no, the instigator almost always has the B.o.P, whether he tries to pass it off or not."[citation needed] Under the Status Quo and most schools of thought and rhetoric, a Burden of Proof can be relinquished. Examples of the relinquishment of the Burden of proof exist all over DDO, Puck I know for sure has a few, usually the ones he instigates. (I originally modeled my DDO debate style off him.) Read the 'Schools of thought' area below it gives a concise guide to the 'BOP'. http://ddofans.com... -Page By Askbob, Wjmelements, Mongeese, Rezzealaux. Are you content? - - - --->This topic is not controversial relative to most mainstream debate topics.
The Problem of evil is a good argument against God and Theodicy.

//Sorry to have to be difficult but in a debate a 'BOP', as you call it, can be accepted or declined by the instigator in round one. I relished this 'Burden' in round one, in case Pro missed it here it is again// You mean relinquished, I presume? And no, the instigator almost always has the B.o.P, whether he tries to pass it off or not. That fact that you made yourself Con as an instigator just to escape from it is quite annoying. In any case, in a topic as controversial as this, we both should have a B.o.P. 1. God a. A being conceived as the perfect, omni benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Anyways, my Problem of Evil characterization goes as such: God is omni benevolent, and, as such, has the power to stop evils. Now, you may say these evils have a purpose, and can build character, greater good, etc. However, how does God justify evil with no purpose, which is will be hereby referred to as UUE (Unneeded, Unnecessary Evil). UUE exists all over the world, in rape, child starvation, unneeded slaughter, natural disasters, etc. Why, then, would a God allow this? It directly conflicts with his omni benevolent nature, and omnipotent powers. He has the power to stop these evils, and his omni benevolence would compel him to do so. Since he does not, he probably does not exist. A syllogism (Burrowed, with permission, from TheSkeptic): (1) UUE probably/does exist(s). (2) UUE is incompatible, and mutually exclusive from the God of Christianity(Omni benevolent, omniscient, omni-potent, etc.) (3) Ergo, the God of Christianity (probably) can't (does not) exist. As you can see, I have supplied both evidential and logical arguments against the God of Christianity, which my opponent will have to defeat. Evidential arguments rely on probability, and logical arguments rely on certainty, just to clarify. He will have to prove that UUE does not exist, and that there is some reason in these evils, and, if he manages to do that, prove that they are not mutually exclusive from the God of Christianity, which is hereby named G.o.C, since I am too lazy to type it out again and again. I look forward to a fantastic debate.
The Problem of evil is a good argument against God and Theodicy.

Burden of Proof, Sorry to have to be difficult but in a debate a 'BOP', as you call it, can be accepted or declined by the instigator in round one. I relished this 'Burden' in round one, in case Pro missed it here it is again: "Atheism has this round to explain his 'Problem of Evil', note - your definition has to be similar to the conventional argument." My part in this debate exists only to prove you wrong and change your attitude which you display with most selective ignorance on the forums. Round 1 existed for you to give you interpretation of the problem of evil. My position exists to contradict or contend your assertions, there's a reason Pro & Con exist. Should the instigator (as Con) relish his Burden of Proof he need not be burdened. Thank you, I seek Atheism's argument next round. I deeply apologise for this incontinence most attentive reader; if all goes well the debate shall resume as intended next round. I also wish to remind Pro it is not in his place as contender to set the terms of the rounds in this debate.
The Problem of evil is a good argument against God and Theodicy.

So, it will go like this: R1 -Blah R1 -Blah R2- -Zets' argument against the problem of evil- R3- -Refuting Zets' argument, and proposing my own(which has some elements from TheSkeptic's, so props to him)- R4- -Same- R4 -Same- R5 -Same/Conclusion- R5 -Same/Conclusion- So, just to be sure, con also has to meet a B.o.P. He cannot just post nothing in R2, refute my arguments(if he can), and then not state what his arguments against the Problem of Evil. Both have a B.o.P. That is all, and I hope for a great debate.
abortion

Due to the substantial and unrecognized benefits of abortion, I urge a vote in affirmation. Contention One: A Fetus is Not a Human Being A fetus is not a human being. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not a baby. Person hood at conception is not a biological fact that has been proved. Person hood begins at birth. The reason society seems to believe that aborting a "baby" is to abort a human being but this belief is almost indefinitely nothing but a religious misconception. The anti-abortion position is usually a religious belief and threatens the vital separation of church and state. Religious ideology should not be a foundation for law in the United States. Those in which are non-religious don't see the vital importance of saving something that is not human in terms of abortion. Religion has even shaped society because the fight of abortion is almost indefinitely related to life or death. Contention Two: Misconceived Disadvantages Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when an abortion is performed according to Stuart W. G. Derbyshire, PhD, Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham (England). "Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur." This shows that people are ignorant to the fact that a fetus doesn't truly know what is actually happening. Arguments of abortion should go deeper into the masses of different issues. Abortion does not hurt a fetus. Contention Three: The Impact of Illegal Abortions A) Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces injury and death caused by unsafe illegal abortions. The World Health Organization estimated in 2006 that "back-alley" abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths each year in countries where abortion is not legal. Just think of the consequences of unprofessionally having a baby aborted. Many women perform this action because they do not that motherhood should be a "punishment" for sexual intercourse, which leads to my next sub point; B) Motherhood must never be a punishment for having sexual intercourse. President Barack Obama said in a Mar. 29, 2008 campaign speech in Johnston, Pennsylvania, "I have two daughters... I'm going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." President Obama never made a collaborative decision to abort a child but he expresses a very good reason why such an action would be essential. For the reasons above, I urge a vote in affirmation, thank you!
abortion

Your argument; 1. but why get pregnant if you dint want the kid?? have you ever looked at it that way.. why kill the child its best to have it and give it to a family who will appreciate it.... even if it was by rape!!! Question #1; Sometimes its not a woman/girl's intention. Sometimes it is and then they change their mind. Not everyone's minds are going to be the same. If we all thought alike that'd be one world I would NOT want to live in. Some things should be universal such as peace but that will NEVER HAPPEN. Last thing you said; Having a baby isn't as easy for some people. You can't just say oh have it and give it away. Have you ever thought about what this woman/girl could be thinking mentally? If you search "woman commits suicide after giving birth," you get over three million hits. Giving an unwanted birth takes a toll on a lot of people. FYI, there are many people who have babies and give them away. When people don't its not because they are bad people, they have reasons. I still stand in strong affirmation, thank you :)
Troll Debate v2.0

One of the most important rules of living out in the wild is to never leave food where someone else, or something else can find it. Leaving out food during the day not only releases a variety of alluring smells but also leaves the meat vulnerable to scavengers. Moreover, this kind of cooking is difficult to control, as we would not be able to adjust heat or stop cooking or anything simply because we are stuck inside the cave. As said before, roasting the dwarves will take far too long, and is a luxury we cannot afford. Perhaps in the future will be join the ranks of darkness and embrace the eternal night once again, but as for now, mincing the dwarves first is really our safest bet.
Troll Debate v2.0

Roasting can be rather problematic, as although most of the time our troll brethern seems to prefer roasting their food whole, this decision almost always results in the food escaping and slaughtering every troll in sight. To avoid such a thing from a occurring, we can chop up the dwarves into bits and pieces, which would most certainly ensure that they are actually dead and not secretly planning their daring escape. Moreover, a good roast is always a slow roast, and a slow roast takes a lot of time, which will take us very close to daylight, something we cannot risk. If we mince the dwarves, the meat will cook much faster, and even if we should run late and petrify during the day, the meat will still be there because the dwarves will have no possibility of being alive. Dwarves are also known far and wide for their habituous drinking, and there result of this is high amounts of carbon dioxide inside the stoumach. If we should roast the dwarf whole, the gas will not be able to escape and the dwarf will eventually explode, which means no meat and a huge mess that will attract deadly scavengers and possibly other trolls that may come to steal our gold.
Troll Debate v2.0

Roasting the dwarves would allow for a softer meat, and the fat from the meat would fall into the fire, creating a hotter blaze and a more thorough heating. Adding things such as pine wood or Bilbo to the fire could also help add flavor through the flame. Though this could take longer, it would have previously mentioned health benefits and flavor. Mincing the meat would be most effective tossed with other things, but taking the time to search for these things would draw us closer to the rise of the sun, making us prone to petrification.
National Sales Tax is no good

The National Sales Tax will - raise the the price on ordinary things for the poor - the poor will not be able to afford food because they can barely afford it now and dont pay taxes - children will not be able to afford the things they can now - a national sales tax will not be enough money for the government - it will encourage states to get rid of their sales tax, giving them less money - states will either continue income tax or increase sales tax significantly, starving the poor - There is a very severe problem of taxing business inputs under a sales tax. These must be exempt from tax in order to avoid cascading—taxes being levied on taxes—which creates serious economic distortions. To avoid this under a NRST, every business, no matter how small, would need some sort of exemption certificate, which would create unlimited opportunities for evasion, or they will have to be extensively audited in ways at least as onerous as under the income tax. - Services are by their nature much more difficult to tax than goods. For this reason, no state makes any effort to tax more than a few of them. Yet the NRST would tax 100 percent of services, including medical services and government services - Every serious analysis has concluded that a NRST would have massive evasion. Taxing the spending of drug dealers and others not currently paying income taxes will not come close to compensating for the new evasion opportunities that will be created. Since it is not in the interest of either retailers or consumers to pay the tax, and because all of the revenue is collected at the point of final sale, it will be too easy for tax-free deals to be made with producers and wholesalers. - Under our current tax system there is withholding of taxes on wages, which is the vast bulk of the tax base
The Usage of Atomic Bombs to End World War II

Well the use of an atomic bomb is and will always be a crime against the human society in any aspect you will look at it even if the country is in war this is not the way to resolve this. I don't need any statistics or citations to argue this. But ask yourself the question with all these people that died how many were innocent children and women and also men that were not involved in this war. So in my opinion this use of atomic bombs is a really cowardly way to end the war because the users ( United-States) have a lot of innocent blood on their hands. And this is to be honest quite sad...
The Usage of Atomic Bombs to End World War II

The Atomic Bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the second World War and resulted in more than 5 million less casualties. According to a study done by Secretary of War Stimson"s staff by William Shockley, going ahead with Operation Downfall (conquering Japan) would have costed 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese casualties (http://www.upa.pdx.edu...). In this one article alone, there are many different studies done on the total amount of casualties resulting from Operation Downfall, and every one of them says that there would have been more than one million Japanese and American casualties, as apposed to the 199,000 casualties of the Atomic Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ("The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Total Casualties. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2014.). Therefore, I conclude that the Atomic Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a more effective way of ending World War II than Operation Downfall.
As a historical document, the New Testament is unreliable

I. IntroductionI would like to thankmy friend for debating this topic with me. Given the last debate, I can tell this will be tough. II. ThesisIn spite of the Christian argument that says the Bible does not contradict known history, the New Testament is an unreliable historical document. The New Testament contains some gross historical mistakes that shows the New Testament is mostly false. III. DefinitionsNew Testament: The 27 books of the New Testament that tells the story of Yeshua and the "fulfillment" of the Tanach.IV. Rules A. Structure Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening ArgumentsRound 3: 1st RebuttalsRound 4: 2nd Rebuttals. Round 5: Closing statements. B. Technical A. VotingPlease read the entire debate before voting. Conduct: A violation of any rule results in an automatic conduct loss of the conduct vote.Spelling: I am not too picky about spelling; but please spell appropriately. Points may be awarded for superb spelling/grammar and/or structure.Please post a detaied RFD. An RFD that may be deemed a "vote bomb" may be nullified. B. AttacksA display of any anti-sematic behaviour, or behaviour that constitutes ad hom. attacks will result in an automatic loss. C. SourcesPlease do not plagarise. Plagarism is an automatic loss.D. Forfeiting. If you desire to resign the debate, please do so honorably---do not troll or prolong the debate. E. Structure The arguments should be clear and easy to follow. Please tag the arguments (i.e,, contention 1; premise 1 etc.) V. Acceptance In round 1, please post that you have read and agree to abide by the rules to the debate. Moreover, you are more than welcome to post your thesis and/or any other definitions you see fit. You may post a summary of your arguments.If you troll this debate, you will be blocked and reported.Only members rated as good or better than me may accept.VI. Burden of Proof The burden of proof is on me. I must prove the New Testament is historically unreliable. Good luck!:-)
Eliminate Tran's Fat in our Schools

For the sake of my sanity, I'll pretend my round 1 was only an introduction, and no arguments were provided. My opponents sources were not tagged with his arguments; if he could do that it would be very much appreciated. ===Con Case=== 1) The Benefits of Trans-Fat [1] [2] [3] In this article by Science Daily, we find that, contrary to my opponent's research, LDL was REDUCED by 25%, while triglycerides were reduced by over 50%. This is a significant health benefit that can be found in naturally occurring trans fats. Moreover, from the same article, trans fats "can reduce risk factors associated with heart disease, diabetes and obesity". I believe this article is enough to refute my opponent's arguments, as it addresses all of the problems presented my opponent. The issue is, part of my opponent's argument is about being preventative towards the future; he points out that research indicates that 75% of kids will be obese by 2015. You can't simply extrapolate data and expect to be accurate; instead, you look to all of the current effects and respond accordingly. In another article, David Kritchevsky of the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia writes, "In recent years, animal fats have been scorned as promoters of chronic disease. The possibility that the trans fats in CLA offer health benefits and are naturally "only found in animal fat is proof God has a sense of humor,"" [4] Since my opponent did not define trans fats, we are left with both the good and the bad trans fats. This drops the debate at a dead impasse, simply because to eliminate the harms would also eliminate the seemingly equal or excessive benefits. But, I contend that, since the good balances out the harm, there is no need to change anything, and undergoing the process to remove trans fats would be expensive, we don't need to change anything- I advocate the status quo. I thank my opponent for the debate. Sources~~ [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [2] http://www.preparedfoods.com... [3] http://www.healthcastle.com... [4] http://findarticles.com...
Eliminate Tran's Fat in our Schools

School: an institution where instruction is given, esp. to persons under college age [1] Eliminate: to remove or get rid of, esp. as being in some way undesirable [2] Trans fat: Trans fat is the result of adding hydrogen to a vegetable oil (hydrogenation) to improve its shelf life, flavor and functional properties. Tans fats have been linked to heart disease. The FDA has determined that trans fat should be consumed in minimum quantities [3] [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] www. soydelicious. com/products/carbescapes_glossary. html Trans fat, in schools, seems to be a problem. My opponent wants to remove trans fat from these institutions; I will contend that this is unnecessary, for there is no trans fat in schools. Schools are generally made of either wood, concrete, or bricks. You can browse through some pictures if you like to prove it . http://www.google.com...= Anyways, I contend that wood, concrete, and bricks have no trans fat. It is my opponent's burden to prove otherwise.
Eliminate Tran's Fat in our Schools

Thank you for your response. It seems my opponent is lost. Cross examination is a series of questions and answers, not rebuttals. Moreover, PF has 4 rounds. You can see the rules here. http://www.nflonline.org... The article provided shows NOTHING about the reduction of LDLs by 25% as a result of removing trans fats. Extend my argument. Darkhearth simply restates his arguments, and doesn't refute the fact that science is at an impasse regarding trans fats. Given that the harms and goods have not been weighed against each other, but I have shown that studies have proven both that it helps (my sources) and harms (opponent's sources) in the same categories, we cannot make a reasonable decision. Thus, I contend that actually removing the trans fats would simply be an economic squandering. As for the definition, it was never truly "defined"; he simply made the claim that trans fats are bad and attempted to make that the definition. As I have shown, there are both good and bad trans fats, and we never distinguished between natural and artificial trans fats. There has been no debate; as an impasse, the voter should default CON. Thank you.