BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Argument From Morality is Flawed and Unconvincing

It is my first one here so I hope it is lively and provocative. You seem like a more than worthy contender. I am not here arguing that God does not exist (though I am an atheist), nor that objective morality does not exist, but only that the argument from morality in favor of God's existence is not convincing. To clarify, when I said that "truly objective morality does not exist" but that morality was objective to a certain extent I was merely denying the notion that there is an "objective moral code" that exists in the same way that you and I and giraffes exist. I think this is ludicrous and incoherent. Morality can best be seen as an extension of rationality. Indeed, for rational beings it is inescapable. You know beyond any reasonable doubt that the other human beings around you are no less conscious than you are. You recognize that they can feel pain and pleasure, experience suffering and happiness, in the same way that you do. You are also capable of taking an objective, birds-eye-view of your circumstances, which leads you to the understanding that your interests are no more valuable than their interests merely because they are yours. I contend that this is the only solid foundation of morality. Morality is not written into the universe, or even into our hearts, but arises out of our rational mind and can be seen in the daily human interactions of actual human beings – human beings interacting with each other, with other sentient beings, and with the Earth. This is an answer to your first point/question. Before I refute the argument that God is a possible (it seems you would say necessary) source of our morality, I would like to focus on your point that morality is "exclusive to humans. " There is ample evidence to suggest that nonhuman animals have moral intuitions and act morally. In a recent study, rhesus monkeys would starve themselves for weeks when their only source of food was pulling onto a rope that brought them their meal but also administered an electric shock to their companion. I believe this study further bolsters my case. Rationality exists in degrees (after all, we evolved gradually out of ape forms) and thus morality, if my argument is correct, should exist in degrees as well. It turns out that it does. You asked me to elaborate on my point that morality can not depend on God and still be objective, and I will answer your question with another question. Does God say that rape is bad because it is already bad, or does he proclaim that it is bad arbitrarily? Could God have just as easily put rape into the "thou shalt not" column instead of the "thou shalt" column? If so, morality is utterly relative; all morality could have gone the other way! Clearly, our morality is not divinely sanctioned. I will address other points (especially Occam's razor, which you misuse egregiously) in my next post. . http://www.nytimes.com... Vote Meursault
The Argument From Morality is Flawed and Unconvincing

Argument From Morality: It is necessary to posit the existence of a god in order to explain the existence of objective morality. Objective morality can be demonstrated to exist, thus God exists. I assert that the above argument is true and absolute. I would first like to clarify that your argument is saying three things. 1. That objective morality does not exist, thus God does not exist. 2. That objective morality does exist but is dependent on humans, not a supreme being. 3. That there is no way objective morality can depend on God. I would like for you to elaborate on this point indeed. First I would like to propose the issue of the source of the debate. You are arguing the statement is false. You must prove that one point is incorrect and I must prove that each point is true. Next I will move to my rebuttal side of the debate. Proposed in the same numbered format as the previous. 1. If my opponent is able to say that objective morality is not dependent on God. Then how is he able to state that it IS dependent on the rationality and autonomy of human beings without proper evidence to back this claim. 2. Now does objective morality exist? Yes it does. A simple observatoin of human nature can easily identify that choices are made, not only based on the situation at hand and the simple ethics of the situation, but also on human nature's ethical choices based on the situation. 3. Objective morality does exist, and is exclusive to humans. This is a key point. How can one observe the exclusivity of objective morality to the human being and say that it was not given by a supreme being? The possiblity of humans ending up with objective morality by chance is nearly impossible. 4. Another key point is that human nature is divined through God. There is no other explanation for it. Occam's razor says that the simplest solution to any given situation is often the right one. God providing objective morality and being the supreme being that created this human nature is the simplest solution here and thus is the right one.
The Argument From Morality is Flawed and Unconvincing

Argument From Morality: It is necessary to posit the existence of a god in order to explain the existence of objective morality. Objective morality can be demonstrated to exist, thus God exists. I assert that the above argument is flawed and unconvincing for three reasons: 1. Truly objective morality does not exist because morality is dependent on the suffering and happiness of sentient beings. There is no external affirmation of morality. 2. To the extent that morality does exist and is objective, it depends on the rationality and autonomy of human beings. 3. Even if both God and an objective morality were real, the latter could not be dependent on the former. I will explain this point in my rebuttal if necessary. I will leave it to my opponent to alter the debate by offering up his/her version of The Argument From Morality.
The Death Penalty should be banned in the U.S

I will be arguing for the ban of the death penalty. BIASED and UNRELIABLE sources are not allowed (philosophy, statistics, logic, and everything else is allowed. ) That you must clearly label parts of your debate speech so your points are understandable. Finally, just so we both know what we are getting into, your first post or argument would be accepting these terms and the stance that you have chosen. Thank you for your time,- Faust
useless

Okay, what makes a post useless is the fact that you are not actually arguing about anything of importance. Currently my opponenet and I are arguing about nothing. What good will this do to us in the future? Will we benefit from this debate in our later lives when we apply for certain colleges or take tests? Do we gain any new knowledge because of our participation in this debate? The answer is no. Therefore, because the answer is no, this debate must be classified as useless. This debate is in fact a debate about nothing at all, just the fact that I am writing about no subject in particular is proof enough. I would like to point out that my opponenet has failed to respond to any of my other arguments, and I hav refuted his. Therefore, we must classify this debate as "useless."
useless

People post all sorts of strange things on the Internet. Most of it is useless, because they need something to do yet are too lazy to research a real topic and post something about that. (i'm not calling you lazy or anything) But its mostly because they are bored and have nothing else to do, which is also probably the reason you posted this. And everything means something, no matter how frivolous or insignificant. For example, I have a green crayon. Such a useless fact, right? Yet it still means something, becuase everything has a meaning to it. And yes, this post is useless. The discussion is simply about how useless it is. lol
Cats are plotting to kill us

Cats definitely hate us. You'll get no argument from me there. But they can't have human slaves if they kill us all, can they? Who would bring them milk? Who would open the tuna cans? Who, I ask you?? Cats may WANT to kill us but they're smart enough to know that, as much as they hate us, they NEED us. So, enslavement is the most viable option and it wouldn't even be the first time it's happened. RE: Cats rubbing against your leg is simply them marking you. As in they OWN you. RE: When they leave a dead animal at your feet...oh yeah, that's a threat, no question. But it's only to show you what they're capable of in order to keep you in line. RE: Cats piss in our houses. On this, we agree.
Cats are plotting to kill us

Have you ever had a Cat come up and rub up against your leg? thats them claiming you to kill you. Dog is mans best friend, Dogs hate cats, Dogs know that cats are attempting to kill us. Cats have devil like eyes. Tigers. Lions. Whenever they leave a dead mouse or bird, that is their warning as to what they are going to do. Cats hate us for killing them and going Cunting( Cat hunting.). Cats hate us for enslaving them. They piss in our houses.
Cats are plotting to kill us

Thanks for the fun (but deadly serious) debate. I will be arguing against the statement "Cats are plotting to kill us." Simply put, not only are cats not trying to kill us, they actively make efforts to save human lives. Two of many examples: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://digitaljournal.com... But why do this? Because they want as many humans servants as possible. For, you see, cats are plotting but not to kill us. Cats are plotting to ENSLAVE us. Cats have been fed tales from their ancient ancestors from old Egypt from a time when humans worshiped cats. Today's domesticated examples long to go back to being waited on hand a foot. Most of them (house cats) receive similar treatment now, which is why the revolution is taking so long. Why upset the status-quo when it's practically what you want? Because of the ego. Sure, cats are properly provided for and even glamorized with movies and TV shows featuring talking cats but...they long for more. They will stop at nothing to return to a time when their feline companions were turned into golden statues and they were given more yarn than a sweater factory. They want to be acknowledged as our one and only God. They will turn our churches into dog pounds. Vacuum cleaners will be abolished. All human jobs will be designed to make life better for the cats. When this inevitably happens, I, for one, will welcome our new feline overlords with arms full of cat-nip, hoping to be awarded a lucrative position in one of their scratching post mansions, dining on Fancy Feast and champagne.
Existence Proves a Creator

Existence proves a creator is an accurate portrayal of my comment. I appreciate that my opponent has been accurate. My point of view is not complex. It is very simple. Creation proves a Creator. Existence proves a Creator works too. But first I want to clear something up. My statement is not intended to necessarily prove the nature of the Creator, only that it/he/she exists. I have my beliefs but recognize that I cannot prove them. My very specific statement is that a Creator exists in some form. It can be debated whether the Creator's nature accurately portrayed by Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, New Age or other. My statement means that a Creator of some kind must exist. I'm simply restating Aristotle's PRIME MOVER theory, which St. Thomas Aquinas also agreed with. Creation proves a Creator exists, just as a Ford pick up truck proves Ford Motor Company exists. If Creation existed without a Creator, then that would mean that a Ford Truck could exist without a place that built trucks. As an example, picture an empty field and poof a truck suddenly appears. Now picture a factory, the doors open and out comes a new truck. Which sentence makes the most sense? Now picture the vacuum of outer space where there is nothing, not even a single atom. Poof! The Big Bang happens and the universe comes into existence. From not a speck exists to suddenly untold Quadrillions of Quadrillions of tons of solid material exists for no reason at all. Something comes from nothing. Next picture the vacuum of outer space where there is nothing, not even a single atom, but there is a Being, a Creator, who's existence is in comprehensible to the human mind. (Which is the definition of God.) The Creator creates the entire universe. The Creator is the cause of Creation. Summarized: When faced with two possibilities 1) Creation came from Nothing or 2) Creation came from Something. Number 2 is the most logical. For number 1 to be true would require a person to believe that nothing existed, and from that sprang everything that exists. Creation proves that a Creator exists.
Existence Proves a Creator

The topic of this debate will whether or not existence proves a creator, specifically a god. It is my understanding that my opponent means the Christian God, however, I ask my opponent to explain which specific god he/she feels it proves (or if he/she feels that it just proves that there is some god).Now what I have defined as existence, my opponent has defined as "creation." See the quote below:"Creation proves the Creator. It really is that simple. How could anything exist without having been made? An Atheist believes that 'Something came from nothing.' Isn't it more logical that 'Something came from Something."? Of course, that begs the question 'Where did the second Something come from?' At that point we have reached the limit of human understanding, because human logic knows that something must come from something else. The Creator is God, of course and a basic definition of God is that humans are not able to comprehend the nature God. But, we are capable of understanding that there must be a God, because here we are. The nature of God can be debated, but his existence cannot. The fool says to himself 'there is no God' Creation proves the existence of a Creator."In the context of this debate, existence can be taken to mean nature and living things (trees, cells, animals). My opponent may use the term "creation," however, as I will explain in my first argument, I do not feel that this is an appropriate label. My opponent will have to demonstrate how the mere existence of these things proves the existence of a god (or creator). I will leave it up to my opponent to define "creator" in his/her opening argument (Round 1). However, semantic arguments are not to be considered valid in this debate.As I am Con, I will give my opponent the first chance to argue. He/she can simply repeat this statement if they choose to, or elaborate on it and change it. So that we may each have an equal number of posts, I ask that my opponent not post an argument the final round. If he/she does not accept, I will open up the argument for someone else.
Things that Donald Trump (the worst president of all time) and god (both are unclean) have in common

I can assure you that nobody wins in this debate, Not even the audience. I would say more things but you haven't given me much to work with. Just several misrepresentations of my character and several huge lists that help to support my claim that Donald Trump is God. So thanks for posting my citations on my behalf, You might be the most helpful opponent I've ever had. You made my case for me. Thanks for you time, This debate was most fun.
Things that Donald Trump (the worst president of all time) and god (both are unclean) have in common

Trump and God have every single detail in common. Since god is definitionally the same as trump, That means I can make a valid and sound a priori argument that they are one and the same and without two entities, You can't compare anything. I can also prove it in reality because God is in the oval office, That makes him demonstrable. So unless you can prove that Donald Trump doesn't exist, I win. #ImpeachGod
afterlife is possible

I conclude that afterlife is possible because paranormal phenomena is possible and can be better explained with afterlife hypothesis. Brain=mind isn't a good explanation for paranormal. If brain is correlated with mind, but there's no cause-effect relation. Who have means and know-how to scientific research are the scientists. Paranormal exists, ESP exists. Ganzfeld experiment is repet"ble and is a good evidence of paranormal. Scientists like Dean Radin (PhD) and others nowadays studies paranormal. Science doesn't deny afterlife nor paranormal. More than 50% of world population believes paranormal and afterlife.Till human being theorectical model isn't complete, nobody can exclude afterlife. Physicalism is a belief. Is a good explanation for physical phenomena, but not a good explanation for all phenomena.
afterlife is possible

The theoretical model of human being isn't finished. Science doesn't have reliable evidences that man is only a flesh body, a biological and natural machine. That"s a scientific hypothesis like much others. Other possible hypothesis may be that human being is a natural and immortal soul linked to a mortal flesh body. Soul probably isn"t made of substances that have the same properties than trivial materials, but isn"t necessary a supernatural phenomena. what we know about nature isn't all, by the contrary i think there is more to know than that humanity already know. With that hypothesis we can explain a lot of phenomena that science doesn"t actually can explain. The scientific position about paranormal phenomenas is the doubt. That doubt only can be resolved with the paranormal phenomena study. I think that nobody can deny that some paranormal phenomena exist. What we can argue is that phenomena aren"t related with the model of immortal soul (where the brain is highly correlated with mind, but isn't the same - if mind survives body death...). However, to argue that man is only a mortal flesh body, is necessary obtain reliable evidences. Where can we obtain the necessary evidences?
Ginger marriage should be legal

UKIP are fruit loops While why I agree that the UKIP is backward, it has taken steps to address the issue of racism among its ranks. For example, it had suspended several candidates for their racist, fascist and homophobic views and comments. Most of their candidates are deemed by local media as "fruit loops" but were nevertheless elected not because of their racist views but due to their down-to-earth demeanor which created the perception that they have better understanding of issues faced by ordinary folks.Their recent successes were also limited to local government positions only and still face an uphill struggle to secure more than a handful of MPs. Their gains are limited to UK and face difficulty repeating the same feat in Scotland were majority of gingers reside.So it is unlikely the UKIP can make any strides on succesfully passing racist laws especially that would require a majority vote which they can only dream of.UKIP is nevertheless the convenient vessel to make proposals to ban ginger marriage as the most effective means to bring gingerism into the spotlight. UK is making progress against racism The UK Race Relations Act of 1965 outlaw racism in employment, housing and social services, which would naturally include solemnization and registration of marriage.It has also in recent times extended the act to abolish institutionalized racism in the police force. So it's almost impossible to pass laws (banning ginger marriage) especially ones that contradict the Act.Racism exists in every part of the world but what makes it prevelant is political apathy. Politicians turn a blind eye because the population is insensitive, ignorant or dismissive of the issue. But the UK continue to be progressive and proactive in dealing with racism. It was the first country to abolish slavery, and the one to acknowledge racism and enact laws to address them. History shows that change only happens when there is a catalyst, usually events that challenge our values and principles when faced by the evil of slavery and racism.And although counter-intuitive at first, it is precisely instances of discrimination and racism (proposals to band ginger marriage is an example) which brings these issues into bear and thru elections, forces the politicians to act. http://www.newstatesman.com... http://www.parties-and-elections.eu...http://pa.oxfordjournals.org...http://www.ukip.org...http://www.telegraph.co.uk...http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Ginger marriage should be legal

He rightly points out that ginger people are ridiculed and discriminated against and that the issue isn't taken as seriously as perhaps it should be. Certainly banning ginger marriage would highlight these issues and start a debate in the media and generally raise social awareness of the problem. However, just as the recent electoral successes of the extreme right-wing neo-fascist UKIP political party illustrates, many English people are very bigoted and might well support a law to outlaw ginger marriages on the grounds that it would help eradicate the 'defective' ginger chromosome from the gene pool. Thank you.
Ginger marriage should be legal

THIS DEBATE CHALLENGE IS SO IRRESISTABLE!!!I ACCEPT!!!!Discrimination of Gingers are Dismissed by the UK government "Gingerism" has been compared to racism, although this is widely disputed, and bodies such as the UK Commission for Racial Equality do not monitor cases of discrimination and hate crimes against redheads.And similar to the opening salvo of the PRO, gingerism is ridiculed and satirised in UK television.But I shall argue that gingerism is real to the point that in UK sperm banks, no one was willing to take sperm from ginger donors.And it doesn't stop with sperm. Take a look at my sources!* Redheads were evicted in Scotland* Ginger Bullying at UK schools* Man stabbed because of his ginger hair* Ginger discrimination in advertisements and mass mediaAnd just like discrimination of immigrants, it is overlooked. But it exists.So how does making Ginger Marriage Illegal solve this problemA proposal to make ginger marriage illegal will force the issue out of the UK media - that Gingerism is now a modern reality. What is contrued as satirical farce by an older generation has now seeped into the DNA of the millenials.Of course such laws will never be actualized and not see the light of day, but it will undoubtedly serve a purpose - social awareness that the English are once again rearing their racist heads!And in a world of social media, nothing is more potent than a mix of trolls and a dose of truth!http://www.garreau.com...http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.bbc.co.uk...http://www.thestar.com...;http://news.bbc.co.uk...http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://news.bbc.co.uk...