BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is impossible to prove that God is omnipotent. Christians only.

Thanks for your reply. 1. I think we don't quite understand each other. Omnipotent means absolute infinity. Nothing in this reality can be infinite. From the debate's title, we are debating not the Lord's infinity, but the ability to prove his infinity. 2. Imagine eternity as a container of beef jerky. This container lasts forever, and has infinite beef jerky. We can't see past the container of eternity, so thus we cannot prove infinity because it simply cannot exist in a provable way. 3. Measurable things *in our reality.* We feel emotion every day- that proves it is real. We cannot see nor hear God every day, so He is immune to these rules. Anyway, thank you for allowing me to debate the nature of the Lord!
It is impossible to prove that God is omnipotent. Christians only.

Thanks for your reply. 1. It does take infinite power to do all of them. If it didn't, then anyone could've or could now do them, but we don't see people accomplishing similar tasks as part of their "norm". That means no one has that kind of power but God, once again proving God is omnipotent. Eternity is just further prove God is omnipotent since no one else is eternal. 2. "Only through eternity can infinity be shown. ...eternity is provable but infinity is not..." If eternity is provable, and infinity can be shown only through eternity, then that means that infinity is also provable. That point then is a paradox, a flawed argument. 3. Third point also flawed. If only measurable things are real, then are our emotions, something we can't exactly measure, not real? The same goes for time. Who can measure time? Does it then become unreal? Once again, time is also infinite, yet not measurable, is it not real? And once again, because something happens in our reality it doesn't make it true or untrue. If the sky is purple in my reality, it doesn't make it so.
Abortion should be made illigal

Note: I'm cutting this way more close than I meant to, so some of this may be rushed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the thought experiment, I actually do not think that someone should be allowed to kill the other person by unplugging themselves, rather the Society of Music Lovers should be held accountable for using you without consent, likely monetarily. Nine months of someones life isn't near as much as the lost life. I do not believe in a right of anyone to inherently decide what to do with their bodies, I believe that it is a good thing to have, but other rights by far trump it. And example would be, imagine you are a parent and your teenage child wants to kill himself. You admit him to a psychiatric hospital even though he wants to kill himself instead of treatment. This imposes on any right to do what he wants with his body very clearly, but protects his life and is more then just legal but highly encouraged and in some cases if you fail to address a known desire for suicide you can be legally held accountable for the death. Another example is you walk on to a bridge and see someone about to jump off, if you pull them back almost everyone would agree you're in the right, but it would be going against the persons wishes and a violation of a persons right to control their body. Now, in both cases one could argue it doesn't count because of mental illness, or age, but if 18.2% and 24% of Americans cannot have a right, then clearly it cannot be a true right. Under the law a minor cannot be killed nor can a mentally ill person, but both have their choices with their body overridden. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://newsfeed.time.com... http://www.newsweek.com... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A mother that conceived a child in rape can give the child up for adoption if she doesn't see herself up to raising a child that came from a violent act. Many people successfully and with minimal problems attaching to the child raise a child conceived in rape. Regardless no ones life should be measured in worth by their relationship with their mother. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Getting an abortion isn't exactly much safer then going through with a pregnancy for the women and also poses an immediate and severe health risk to the unborn child involved, known as death. https://ramahinternational.org... http://www.aul.org... For your last point I would like you to list the countries of which that is the case, as many counties that have outlawed abortion have very little reliable law enforcement and are very poor, meaning most women have very few resources to head to for their children.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

I find the Kalam argument one of the more worthy arguments to consider for Gods existence, at the very least it can be said it sure as hell beats the argument of tide goes in, tides goes out, you can't explain that, therefore God exists. (And if you don't get that joke, just youtube tides goes in, tides goes out. ) I think something worth pointing out is that the kalam doesn't just conclude that the universe has a cause, but that cause MUST be God, as wikipedia explains. .. "The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist, and this First Cause must be God. It is also applied by the Spiritist doctrine as the main argument for the existence of God. Classical argument The Kalām cosmological argument:[10] 1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; 2) The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore: 3) The universe has a cause of its existence. 4)If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God; Therefore: 5) God exists. " [1] In regards to how "cause" has been defined. I won't challenge the definition as it is, but I want some room to object to how exactly the concept of causality is used throughout Pros argument. I suspect Pro is going to reference cause in the everyday sense and scientific sense but will then branch to outside of the universe and then argue some kind of causality (in the meta physics sense). Whether causality can even be applied to outside and beyond the universe and how its applied is a point I will probably want to bring up. In regards to the definition and concept of God, I would also add the other maximal properties of greatness, like all wise/intelligent, omi benevolent, morally perfect, personal. I will seek to show that that the argument given by Pro does not give sufficient warrant to believe that God exists. I look forward to Pros opening argument. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

In studying Theistic arguments for God I have found that the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be the most discussed / controversial argument. In studying it extensively I now believe it to be sound and without any fallacy. I want to test my knowledge and expand upon it in this debate. I welcome any debater that is willing to put forward a logical and in depth critique of the argument. Therefore...Resolution: The Kalam Cosmological Argument is logically sound, and provides solid evidence of of the Universe having a cause that is thus far best described as being God.The Kalam Cosmological Argument:P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The Universe began to exist.Conclusion: The Universe has a cause.Definitions:Exist: To have objective reality or being.Universe: All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.Cause: A justification for something existing or happening.God: The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.Debate structure:Round 1: Acceptance and clarification / definition of words if necessary.Round 2: Opening argument and further understanding of definitions.Round 3: Rebuttal of arguments and further establishing of their own argument.Round 4: Same as round 3. Round 5: No new arguments given here as the opponent will not have another round to refute the evidence. This round will consist of further rebuttals of their opponents arguments, summarization of their points, and their conclusion.5 rounds total, 8000 character limit, 6 month voting period.
Should we use well-known or local celebrity endorsement for a multinational company

A well known celebrity runs the risk of being a high risk high reward situation. The price of a well known celebrity could reach several hundred thousand dollars for a appearance that may or not work. If a well known celebrity is used and it does not create enough revenue to pay the celebrity and get a decent profit then the well known celebrity endorsement becomes a failure. Another problem of the well known celebrity is their popularity might hide the very message that the advertisers wanted to send. Celebrities popularity can and often overshadow the product and cause one to never remember the product. Hence it hurts the ROI (return on investment). http://frog-dog.com... Meanwhile it would be far cheaper to get a celebrity that is locally known as they would be far cheaper and the ROI would be far higher while the risk would be far lower. http://www.forbes.com...
Miley Cyrus

I figured you were just another forfeiter. I look forward to a (good) debate;) So we're clear, the burden of proof is on you, as the instigator, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the resolution "Miley Cyrus is a bad role-model." If she is as bad of a role model as you claim, then the millions of girls that look up to her can find a new one. We all know she is simply another breast-fed by Michael Eisner, bubblegum-pop, light as a feather, mass consumption of idiocy model, right? Or do we? Why is she a bad role model? What specifically has she done? Has she committed any felonies? Does she smoke crack? Does she abuse little children? First, the debate is started under the assumption that "Don't Break my Heart, Jr." is a role-model. Can you please clarify the difference between a "good role model" and a "bad one"? What values/criteria do you assign to good and bad, respectively? How do your personal ethics, which you are judging one person with and projecting onto "millions of girls," affect your point of view? Second, this person is young, attractive (I use that word loosely, I'm sure she is to some), talented (even more loosely), and successful. These are three of the most desired attributes to have in the modern world, and in our culture of consumption that worships exploited barely-there teenyboppers who "live on the wild side," I can see no better role-model. This is America: the market provides what people want. They wanted, and still want, this young lady, evidently. Back to you, slammin Britt
Miley Cyrus

I am extremely sorry for not responding to your earlier posts on the other debate. I was unable to acess the computer most of this whole past week. I promise I will be better about this debate though! :) Pretty much, my earlier opening argument stands true: This is a debate on simply Miley Cyrus. Not on her show, just her as a person. I am totally against Miley. She is a horrible role model for the millions of young girls that look up to her. This is a short first argument I know, but I do need something to rebut. Thanks so much! I think that we should just start over and begin a fresh debate! Thanks so much, and again I am sorry.
Gun control

Thank you for your quick response. 1 - You made no case to disprove my argument. You only brought up an Einstein definition about insanity. Most people would use this insanity definition. *Insanity - the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind. [1] *Insane - not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged. [2] And you it is completely illogical to state that every person who knows of one of these crimes is mentally deranged. 2 - "I know that not everyone will do that, but my point is that it can happen." Not everybody that flies on a airplane will die, but people that fly on airplanes do, on occasion, die. And many people may die at once. Should we ban all forms of air flight? 3 - "The truth is, it's technically true, but it's a logical fallacy." You agree that guns kill people rather than people killing people. 4 - "If the shooter didn't have a gun, their life would have been saved." First, you don't know this. Pipe bombs, moltov cocktails, etc. are very simple to make. Second, they could've walked outside, tried to cross the road, and got hit by a bus for all you know.
Gun control

Second, since you didn't actually state your arguments, I suppose I will just take what are to be understood arguments from your case and negate them. 1 - "we all pretend to feel bad about it and we all pretend that we think mass murders are horrible things" I don't think anybody "pretends" to feel bad about these things, or "pretends" that they think mass murders are horrible things. And if anybody does, certainly not ALL of us would agree. 2 - "So, if you can't even deny someone tenure without the possibility of being shot, we need to make changes. " Many people have been denied tenure without shooting anybody. According to your statement, we only need to make changes if every time somebody is denied tenure, and many people have been denied tenure without being shot. Therefore, we need to make no changes. 3 - "GUNS KILL PEOPLE. " The popular statement, guns kill people. Obviously, people kill people. If a gun was sitting all by itself on the counter, would it have the ability to kill anybody?
Gun control

You might be asking, am I going to start a gun control debate every time there is a horrible massacre? Maybe so. Because every time I see reports of mass murders and massacres, we all pretend to feel bad about it and we all pretend that we think mass murders are horrible things, but then we go on with our lives and don't do anything at all to prevent more mass murders. Is that not the definition of insanity? Today, in Alabama, a faculty member opened fire and killed at least 3 people because she was denied tenure. What has the world come to, when being denied tenure will cause you to shoot someone? So, if you can't even deny someone tenure without the possibility of being shot, we need to make changes. Right now, we're selling people guns that are specifically manufactured to kill people. That needs to stop. I can't believe that the red flag has been thrown out so many times, yet we still ignore it. GUNS KILL PEOPLE.
The gift of heaven is free

Maybe I suck at debate in general, but I don't think I made a claim. The question is making a claim: that the gift of heaven is free. I'm the "con." Stating my position is not making a claim. 1) Next time I'll be looking for someone who's a Christian who believes God is good rather than a fellow atheist who doubts the existence of heaven. For now, I'd be happy to concede. I don't have much interest in debating a fellow atheist. Perpetuating the debate under that pretense is not helping anyone. Any "argument" brought up by either side can be claimed to be a straw man, and consequently unconvincing to anyone. 2) again, part of the inital question. It's my first debate on debate.org Sorry for wasting everyone's time.
The gift of heaven is free

There are no free gifts, and a Christian who believes in heaven and hell AND insists heaven is free is ignoring this rule of thumb. The simple cost of Heaven is hell. By accepting heaven for you (selfishly) you also accept hell for others (wrathfully.) This is a price to pay: your morality. If you insist that there is nothing but joy for you in heaven, then you are paying with your empathy. By feeling joy AND knowing others are being tortured, you have cut yourself off from a state of being that helps us be HUMAN: empathy. This is a price you pay: your empathy. Hell is a slander against God. It is an accusation that God has NOTHING more to his argument for "why we should be good people" than a LOADED GUN: hell. It accuses God of being a thug at the end of his rope, afraid and angry. If God is real and God is good, accepting hell is slander against the real God. It is a falsehood you accept. This is a price you pay: falsely accusing God of the sin of wrath.
Marijuana ought to be legalized

I believe marijuana should be legal ONLY on certain terms. The certain terms being to help with a disease, such as cancer, epilepsy, AIDS, etc. Now, this marijuana isn't smoked, it's taken orally. It's for cancer patients whom suffer nausea and vomiting; It helps reduce both problems. Some cancerous treatments cause those effects. For epilepsy, it helps reduce stress. For AIDS patients, it helps gain appetite, which allows them to gain weight. Marijuana should only be used medically, whether than to just be using it. People react differently when induced on marijuana -- Some contain themselves, acting mellow...Some act wild and out of control. My real argument is: Marijuana should be used medically, and medically ONLY, because if it were just legal and any one could use it, it would be JUST like if it were illegal. People would still lace it with other drugs and hallucinogens, people would still kill over it, and etc. [What I said in the comments, basically.] I'm in between about it. Allowing it be legal, could be a pro and a con; Along with being illegal, pro and con.
Marijuana ought to be legalized

The resolution is that marijuana ought to be legalized. I stand in firm affirmation of this topic. As this has become a main issue, I thought I would try my hand in defending the legalization of marijuana. I would like to make a pre-case observation that the resolution states that by "marijuana ought to be legalized," it means it SHOULD be legalized and we must debate the place marijuana would have in our society and whether or not legalizing marijuana will be for the balanced good or the balanced harm of our society. My definitions are as follows. Marijuana- a strong-smelling plant from whose dried leaves a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs are prepared Ought- Used to indicate obligation or duty I will present my arguments once my opponent accepts this debate in round 2. Good luck
The United States and Confederaflag are both symbols of slavery...

Hawaii is a state and my point regarding Alaska and Hawaii's statehood was that those were annexed in 1959, almost 100 years after abolition. 50 stars can't represent slavery because there weren't 50 states during that time. The Confederacy was founded upon "chattel slavery". The US was founded for different reasons as I mentioned before. The US was founded because of conflicting political ideologies with Britain. The Confederacy was actually founded because of slavery. While those historical figures listed by my opponent were slave owners, the US wasn't based on slavery. It was based on differing political ideologies from that of Britain[1]. Slavery was terrible and inhumane. I acknowledge its existence, yet it being existent in the 1800's doesn't have relevancy to whether or not the flag represents slavery. As slavery is illegal[2], our flag most certainly cannot represent it. I read my opponents source 4, which was very vague and did not mention any specific people. Lincoln believed slavery was against american principles, that "all men are created equal" and that we have the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are all moral reasons, not economic reasons. Lincoln "had not only given slaves their freedom; he'd also begun to promote full equality, including voting rights, for blacks"[3]. Furthermore, college debt and other forms of debt are in no way slavery. Those are self-inflicted. The US can't be held accountable for someone spending more than they earn. My opponent also says that a dependence on money is an addiction and therefore slavery. This is a frivolous argument. We use currency to have an economy. My opponent also claims that private central bankers intentionally inflate prices and somehow that is a form of slavery. There is no evidence for this assertion. As far as consent of the governed goes, if you want to live in this country, you consent to being governed. If you want to choose your own government, there are almost 200 to choose from. My opponent also claims that that schools, housing and education are segregated and racially biased, but that is not true at all. Brown vs Board of Education overturned that[4]. In conclusion, the US, a democratic abolitionist country does not represent slavery because it was not founded because of it and it is a highly frowned upon practice. Also, the Confederate flag represented the precise ideology that Dylann Roof has and he was seen burning the US flag (a symbol of equality) while posing with the Confederate flag. [1] http://www.archives.gov... [2] http://www.loc.gov... [3] http://www.usnews.com... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
The United States and Confederaflag are both symbols of slavery...

We are debating that the U. S. flag does not represent slavery and that the Confederate flag was relevant to the Charleston shooting. The majority of my opponents argument is a red herring, as almost none of it has to do with what specifically we are debating. My opponent also uses ad hominem to disregard my argument by saying "I believe my opponents revisionist view of history will be glaringly obvious to the reader by the end of this debate. " I will only argue the topics being debated so my argument here will be shorter. I appreciate my opponent bringing up the fact that the Union once held slaves, as it is a valid reason to question our nations flag. However, I must declare that slavery is illegal and slavery goes against the most basic American principles. We as a nation do not stand for slavery[1]. Also, the current flag of 50 stars never underwent slavery, so the current flag couldn't represent it. As for my "distortions": Lincoln was a Unionist greatly opposed to the idea of slavery. Our flag doesn't represent slavery because slavery goes against the most basic American principles, that "all men are created equal" and we all have the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", which Lincoln successfully proved. We are debating whether "the U. S. flag" is or isn't "a symbol of slavery" and whether or not the "confederate flag is relevant to the Charleston shooting". Though I agree with you that racism still exists, most of your argument had nothing to do with the U. S. flag representing slavery nor the Confederate flag being relevant to the Charleston shooting. Your argument was mostly about racism existing in the US. While racism still exists in every country, this has nothing to do with the U. S. flag representing slavery. [1] . http://www.loc.gov...