BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Is Not Real

Definitions: God: the Christian interpretation of God Intelligent Design: the theory that life cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Larynx: the hollow muscular organ forming an air passage to the lungs and holding the vocal cords in humans and other mammals; the voice box. Aorta: the main artery of the body, supplying oxygenated blood to the circulatory system. God's logic is exceptionally flawed. If God "intelligently designs" each human, in his own image, why does he decide to make people gay? The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22). God crafts this unique human, decides to make them gay, and sends him or her to Earth, and when he or she dies, he sends them to Hell for being gay. The very idea of praying is pointless. God has already decided the day each person will die (Psalm 139:16). A cancer patient could pray for every second of the day, but whether they live or die depends entirely on God's plan, and praying in a situation like this would not change God's plan. God has "intelligently designed" everything according to the Bible (Hebrews 3:4). Design, in nature, is unintelligent. In the case of giraffes, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which controls the muscles in the larynx, is approximately 15 ft long. The nerve comes from the brain, passes within an inch of the larynx, travels down the giraffe's neck, loops under the aorta, travels back up the giraffe's neck, and connects to the larynx. What kind of sane designer would choose this design, instead of connecting it directly to the larynx? The nerve travels this way because it is not inherently harmful to the giraffe, so it has not been removed by natural selection. "Intelligent design" and evolution are incompatible. If God has designed everything perfectly, why would he allow evolution to take place, seeing as it could possibly ruin his impeccable creations? Evolution is a proven theory, unlike the existence of God. There is no scientific evidence of God. God has never left any proof of his existence, nor did Jesus leave any proof of his miracles. If there was any evidence of God, we would talk about "the science of God," not "faith in God. "
Blue Whale game should be banned

This game should not be banned, because the people who play this game, it is only because they accepted the "challenge". Also, there are many people that want to commit suicide, so what better way to do it with a game and a cool whale tattoo... As you mentioned, the kids who do not know what are they doing are like that because their parents don't care about them, so its the parents fault, not the kid. So first, little kids (maybe under 12) should not have access to computers on their own, and second, if it is not a small kid, it was their choice.
The Moral Argument for God is Sound

I have already responded to your argument. I dissected it in the round 3. But if you’re going to say, as you did, that “it does not matter whether or not [God] exists,” then that pretty much concedes the argument that this debate is centered around. You may have other things to say, but the main point of the moral argument is that God is necessary to establish objective morality. I disagree. You essentially agree with me on that – and that is the whole purpose of the debate. So how can I continue debating someone who agrees with me on the main issue of this debate? I agree it’s not right to go on any further. You seem to want to debate something different than I do, so I do not understand why you accepted this debate since I clearly said whoever accepts this debate will have to defend the moral argument. If you want to debate another topic in the future that is different from this one, feel free to challenge me, but I don’t want to debate other things in this debate, I like to stick with the topic. Just put in a comment for round 5 so we can end this debate.
The Moral Argument for God is Sound

I will argue no more, my argument has flown over your head. You have not taken the time to consider what I've written and you've continuously misunderstood it. I have already answered every question. You have not given me the courtesy of reading my answers patiently and as such you have missed the points I have made. To continue this debate would be pointless, you seem to either be having this debate to stroke your ego, not to determine any fact. Read closely.
The Moral Argument for God is Sound

Pro says “God or Gods here is arbitrary, though for the sake of the argument I will say that he exists.” That sounds to be like he is conceding the argument. I’m not sure if Pro is aware of this, but he is supposed to be defending the moral argument that I outlined above in round 1. He has yet to even address a single part of it. Instead he has chosen to write overly convoluted ramblings that make little sense about morality. I don’t think he is prepared for this debate. My whole argument against the moral argument is that God is not needed; he is redundant and arbitrarily placed by certain people who feel the need to use him to have power over others. I’ve never mentioned anything about babies burning or why God allowed it, so I’m not sure why Pro brought that up. The moral argument addresses one specific question: Is God needed to have objective morality? I would like Pro to answer this question as best he can and defend it. It seems to me from his writing that he’s agreeing with me that God is not needed and is irrelevant to the discussion. If that is true, he’s conceding and I win. Perhaps a few direct questions will help. To Pro, please answer the following:1. Are you a Christian?2. Do you think morality is subjective or objective?3. If subjective, why?4. If objective, why?5. What (if any) ontological foundation exists for morality?6. Is it true that if God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist?7. If God's commandments constitute our moral duties and what is right and wrong, and you think they are not arbitrarily decided, they must then be in accordance with what positively benefits human beings such as love, compassion and empathy. If this is so, wouldn't these things also be objectively good in the absence of God? If not, please explain why. I wouldn’t say that Socrates’ question is stuck in any age. When one asserts that morality is founded in God, I think his question is a very relevant one to ask in response. One thing I did notice is that Pro failed to answer the question and dismissed it as “silliness.” So I want to remind Pro that his position is to argue that the moral argument is sound, which he has failed to do and which he accepted this challenge knowing he would have to defend. The moral argument says: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. I would like to see Pro directly defend this argument and each premise and make a good case why its logic is sound and that it is true. If Pro cannot do that, he is not upholding his end of the bargain that he agreed when taking this challenge. Can Pro do it? Or will he concede?
The Moral Argument for God is Sound

Thank you for your response. Because truth is not objective in all cases, there is forced upon the observer and the observed a want for greater accuracy of identification of perfection, or, the pursuit of provable fact. If a belief is held as factual and is used to measure the observed's morals, and morals are real and independent of the mind, then the measure of the observed's morals is not factual in all cases. If facts are desired, then further tuning of the beliefs are required. This will be incremental and continuous all over until reality has as identity. This can be seen as having foundation in beliefs and made accurate until it becomes fact. Or, because God exists, objective morals exist, by virtue of the lack of proof that beliefs are factual and therefore objectively moral.Proof:Let a belief imply other beliefs, let a belief imply God. Let a person use as a property of belief the argument for perfection, or the argument of the objective morals of God as a measure, then moral objectivity is founded upon the belief of God.
The Moral Argument for God is Sound

This might force me to change the rules since round 1 is wasted just establishing preliminaries. Let me answer your questions. By “objective” I mean something that is true or factual independently of anyone’s opinion or personal feelings towards it. On your bullet points I presume that you want me to comment/respond to them but they are not in the form of questions. Let me briefly respond here. One need not have knowledge of morality in order for their actions to be assessed by others morally, but in order for an action to be assessed morally the belief in right and wrong is required. The moral argument as I’ve outlined it does not presuppose that God exists, so I’m not sure how this is relevant. I’m not sure what you mean by this one, please explain in the comments. Before existence is like saying before time, there is no time before time and there is no existence before existence. I’m not sure what you mean by this one either, please explain in the comments. If you mean that ideas must come from a prime existence then that negates free will since all of our ideas would originate in some sort of prime being (i. e. God) who controlled us. If there are any more questions in order to establish preliminaries, please use the comment option to ask me so that we do not waste rounds simply just asking each other questions. Otherwise, please make your case in order to support the moral argument.
The Moral Argument for God is Sound

I would like to start off by saying that this is not an uncommon topic, so I really do wonder what good will come of debating it once again. Nevertheless, I welcome it, as it seems to be educational. First, I would ask Con to define "Objective". Second, I would like him to consider If a moral action requires the belief in a right and wrong If a God explicitly describes what is right and wrong Then those commands are founded upon some other ideas But only a super-natural creature exists before existence Then any idea must come from prime existence. I hope that my inexperience does not show too blatantly and that what I have said will be considered regardless of my rank.
The Moral Argument for God is Sound

The moral argument for God is as follows: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. This argument seeks to establish that objective moral values are ontologically founded in God's existence. I will be arguing the Con position that objective moral values are not founded in God's existence and that this argument by itself does not successfully establish God's existence.Rules/StipulationsPro will defend this argument and defend it's conclusion that it establises God's existence and ontological foundation for morality. Pro will bear the initial burden of proof.There will be 4 rounds with 3 days to respond. In the first round Pro will make the case defending the moral argument above and then I will respond. In the last round, round 5, Con will forfeit that round to make opportunities fair.
God exists.

To move right along to something I noticed right off the bat, is my opponent arguing against the Judeo-Christian god specifically or just god in general? I'm afraid I will have a hard time defending it's existence if I do not know which one so I ask that my opponent clears this up in the next round. For now I will simply provide an argument for a god in the general sense. I must say that personally I am a strong atheist but I have done so many debates on the existence of god that I have been trying to play devil's advocate more so as to understand where theists come from. I hope that will not be a problem for my opponent however my last opponent tried to get the vote by default as we agreed on the topic. I just thought I would clear that up before we begin. Before this debate begins I would like to define the terms of the resolution so as not to allow any confusion. God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. [1] As a side note I do not believe that god must be the ruler over the universe as in a god who presides over human affairs. This would leave out impersonal gods like that of Deism. For this reason I suggest an interpretation of this definition to mean that this god is all powerful. Exists: To be as a fact and not as a mode; to have an actual or real being, whether material or spiritual. [2] I completely agree that this should be a semantics free debate although I do love to exploit a loophole. I accept all of the preliminary logistics you have provided in the first round and I look forward to a riveting debate. I will post my opening argument in this round and go into more detail as the debate proceeds as to follow the rules my opponent has set out for the first round. [3] Kalam Argument[4] Premise1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for it coming into being. Premise 2: The universe began to exist. Conclusion 1: Therefore the universe had a cause for it's coming into being. Conclusion 2: This cause is god. [5] Conclusion 3: Therefore god exists. I now await my opponent's response. [1]. http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]. http://define.com... [3]"Round one: introductions and what not. The other side uses round one to accept the stuff in the intro and to present his opening argument. " [4]. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... [5]I am not making a base assumption that the cause of the universe must be god, only that my definition provides that god is the creator of the universe.
God exists.

**DISCLAIMER** I have not debated on this site in over a year. I'm an NOT up with the times on DDO. I have not yet taken the time to dive into the Religion forum and get mixed into the fray that exists there. However. I do know how to debate. Ok so I want to talk about God. More specifically the JudeoChristian God. I'm against his existence. I do not believe he doesn't exist. I just don't think he does. I find it difficult to believe that He does, but I don't believe that he doesn't. My opponent will ideally be a: rational thinker. That's it. Lets not talk semantics, but actually just talk about the topic. Round one: introductions and what not. The other side uses round one to accept the stuff in the intro and to present his opening argument. Round two is debating. Round 3 is debating Round 4 is closing statements and what not. I'd appreciate it if Pro didn't do arguing this round, and did his closing in round 3, to correct skew. And i patiently await my opponent i guess.
send me a friend request so we can be friends

>so we can chat some more I am quite sure it is possible for members to chat without the friend request. Many members set their message settings to "anyone can PM me" >yes i may have snapped a little but only because of what she said That is irrelevant to the debate and you did not clarify who "she" is. >if you want me to send a request then i will but if you dont want to then its ok This is also irrelevant to the debate. /==~=0=VOTING ISSUES=0=~==Arguments: Pro only has one real argument and I rebutted it quite well. Arguments go to me. Conduct: Pro FF'd a round. Conduct goes to me. S&G: Pro uses improper punctuation and capitalization. S&G go to me. Sources: Neither of us have sources. Tied. Therefore I believe I have won today's debate. Thank you and vote Con! ^_^
Intelligent design should not be respected as much as the theory of evolution

Contention I --> My opponent misses my point. I wasn't just talking about function. I was talking about biochemical codes and algorithm, that is, that matches a computer. Computers are designed and someone would look stupid if they asked, hmm, did this computer pop into existence? No, the computer had a designer, e.g. Dell, Alienware, etc. The codes in one single cell are so complex, that it resembles a designed machine. --> He then goes on to bring up the Miller-Urey experiment. This proves nothing. It simply proves that while frozen, "It was a color that both men knew well—the color of complex polymers made up of organic molecules." That is, new molecules appeared. Basically, this doesn't prove anything because it doesn't show that complexity still exists. Contention II --> He says that morality is group oriented. I contend this to be false. MOST aspects of morality are group oriented, but certain standards of morality still exist. I.e. killing, raping, cheating and stealing are immoral. Essentially, standards of right and wrong exist, and evolution cannot answer why people have morality when it hurts the self. Hurting the self goes against the Evolution tenet of self-preservation. --> He then says that everything has a concept of truth. He gives the bird example. This is flawed because his example is talking about instinctual truths. I.e. I need to eat to live. However, our rationality goes beyond that. E.g. We know we exist, and we question it. Having this debate of how we came to be is proving human rationality, which we only have. --> He then says that I am talking about Deism. That is correct, Deism is a form of ID, and thats the form that I am debating. [Rebuttal] --> My opponent never responds to my assumption attack. --> also, I wasn't just talking about your slime mold example. I was talking about your transcription and replication sentence. That's what conceded that complexity idea. --> My card I provided was evidence proving that transcription and replication is complex, even in its simplest form. --> He then brings up the air and food hole example. I have 2 responses: 1. Where would you like it to go, in your anus? I personally would not like that (Sorry for crude example) 2. Do you know the mind of god/gods/supernatural being? --> Me and my opponent agree that the universe is mathematical. You can now affirm right here. Math is a complex way of formulation. Math could not exist in its present form from nothing. Thus, a designer/mathematician is necessary. --> My opponent believes that empirical evidence is the only way to prove or disprove. This is false. E.g. I can disprove the fact that under my desk is a huge purple elephant, without looking. Why? Well, elephants don't live indigenously in NY. My desk to small for an elephant, thus without using my senses such as sight. I can deduce the fact there is no purple elephant under my desk. --> Furthermore, the realm of proving or disproving god msut be a rationalistic argument, and/or an a priori argument. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
People are reason for extinction of animals

1.Ever since man came busting out of the last Ice Age 11,000 years ago, armed with sharpened sticks, traps, and snares, he has had a nasty habit of wreaking havoc on plants and animals. The first time he swept across North America, man wiped out saber-tooth cats, mastodons, mammoths, huge ground sloth, short-faced bears, and dire wolves. 2. Centuries later, when the British colonist came ashore in South Carolina, they found, according to one account, "endless Numbers of Panthers, Tygers, Wolves, and other Beast of Prey". Needless to say, the newcomers wasted little time in wasting them, too. 3. By the late nineteenth century, man's weapons of choice in his continuing war against nature had become more sophisticated. Today parking lots, pesticides, waste dumps, and industrial pollutants of all stripes are the new spears, though the victims remain the same- plants, animals, and their homes. Grasslands and wetlands are increasingly replaced by subdivisions and malls. Trees and lakes are poisoned by acid rain. 4.Since 1900s, Africa's wildlife population has declined by more than seventy percent as the human population has grown six fold. 5.In the early twentieth century, the earth was losing one species a year.Today, it's one species a day- 400 times the natural rate.
People are reason for extinction of animals

I will argue that people are A reason for extinction of animals, not THE reason for the extinction of animals. Evidence: (1-6) Other means of extinction includes: 1) Sudden or drastic climate change such as an ice age 2) Meteor impacts (like what happened to the Dinosaurs) 3) Volcanic eruptions wiping out surrounding plant life native only to regions 4) Volcanic eruptions world wide fundamentally changing the atmosphere 4) New diseases that can kill animals on their own 5) New invasive species that wipes out what other animals normally feed on or the animals themselves (predation) 6) Genetic pollution http://www.uwec.edu... http://www.eoearth.org... 7) 99.9% of all life is extinct, but humans have only been around for a fraction of time http://en.wikipedia.org... People are A reason for extinction, they are not THE reason for extinction as implied by the debate resolution
Afro Samurai would win a fight against Samurai Jack

What are you talking about? Samurai Jack is an American animation It's friggin' Cartoon Network and Hanna Barbera productions. Even so, you'll find that lag affects the person with the better connection, who will be seeing a person standing still but swing through them. And he's Japanese. Samurai are Japanese. He couldn't have Korean remains, that's insensitive at best to say so.
Afro Samurai would win a fight against Samurai Jack

To measure speed, you need distance and time. So yes, if you had Afro's dimensions, you could calculate how fast he was moving. I don't think either of us is willing to do that. On the whole magic sword thing; Firstly, it's still a sword, it cuts bamboo just fine ,and is made sturdy by its enchantment. Secondly, yes, it cuts pure evil, but Afro's friend (who I believe is known as Ninja Ninja). Now, as far as I could tell from watching the series (which I did, ages ago) he does have a degree of physical presence in the world. I looked around, and there are explanations in Japanese mythology. I believe it's called the Bujin (correct me if I'm wrong), and it's an extension of the self. Afro is seemingly projecting all his positive attributes into Ninja Ninja for the purpose of letting go anything that could hold him back from fighting (note he can kill a former friend easily after Ninja Ninja's death in the first series, and this bujin is absent during the fight with his father). If Afro is projecting all his good into another form, then there's nothing left but pure evil. If the two met, Afro would likely see him as an obstacle and attack. That's a fight Samurai Jack would win.
Afro Samurai would win a fight against Samurai Jack

Fps does not only mean frames per second which is a ratio of changing frames to time but also feet per second which is a measurement of speed. Your right it's a Japanese animation so obviously the bullets are not real but you can somewhat guess how fast they would be moving if it were real. Also I"d hate to use pull this card on you but the magic sword that Samurai Jack uses can only cut pure evil and therefor could not harm Afro Samurai. Yes Afro it probably schizophrenic due to the fact that he was severely traumatized as a child and has what seems to be vivid hallucinations of an imaginary friend, (it might be his imagination but i wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't) But he is no psychopath he questions his morals (in the form of his projected friend questioning him) and he does not kill or hurt anybody that does not attempt to kill him first, he merely slays those who get in the way of his objective, he is driven by revenge and i must say that if samurai jack got in the way of his revenge he would be slain. However, if samurai jack happened to cross paths with him they would most likely not fight nor even talk. Especially if this hypothetical situation occurred after Afro had enacted revenge.