BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Without God life has no meaning or value

Pro says regarding special pleading " Both cases of double standards and special pleading rely on the EQUALITY of both parties" Pro is justifying the special pleading, based on God being superior. But its not that I object to God being superior, I object that the REASON/PRINCIPLE given only applies to God. When you use a reason/principle selectively this is special pleading. As Wikipedia says Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) As I said before. .. .. .. .. "Claim 3) "Only God can given meaning to life, if a person or humans make up meaning to life, its just made up and not real" This is just special pleading. If a personal being such as a human gives purpose to something its fake, if a personal being such as God gives purpose to something its real. " Pro says "This is easily refuted. As there is only one god in existence, suppose that I am the only person capable of interacting with this hammer. Ergo, God retains his control over meaning simply because he is the only omnipotent/omnipresent entity CAPABLE of using us" Pro says suppose I am the only person capable of interacting with the hammer, but why accept this ? there are plenty of other hammers/people in the real world. Once we allow that there are other people, just like in the world, Pro can't justify the claim that the hammer only has purpose with their existence. Pro says "Ergo, God retains his control over meaning simply because he is the only omnipotent/omnipresent entity CAPABLE of using us" Pro wants us to grant that God using a person gives meaning to life, but that a person using a person does not result in meaning to life. But the question once again is, why does God using a human mean there is purpose to life, but if a human uses a human there is no purpose to life ? , this is just special pleading again. I look forwards to Pros response.
Without God life has no meaning or value

===Rebuttals=== "Pro takes me to task, for using the wrong terminology when I said double standard. Pro seems pretty smart to me, I think they understood my argument and this is just a semantic point. I shall change my terminology from double standard to special pleading. " As it seems, my opponent does not know what special pleading implies either. "The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following: A person accepts a particular set of standards. This person then applies these standards to all others, seemingly consistently and without exception. Said person then finds themselves hindered by their own set of standards - this can induce cognitive dissonance. Being unwilling to accept the hindrance caused by their own standards, a person simply declares themselves to be a "special case" without due reasoning. They then exclude themselves from their own standards to make their case. "[1] This is not simply a semantic point. Both cases of double standards and special pleading rely on the EQUALITY of both parties. For reasons stated above, God has already been proven superior to humans. Therefore, this is not a case of special pleading as there IS due reasoning for God's superiority. ===Pro's Case=== Suppose I [Representation of God] created a hammer [Representation of humans]. The hammer's purpose is so I can hammer nails. Without me, the hammer loses all meaning. Con catches on quickly, saying that "What if some one else users the hammer to hammer different nails, or hammer something different, or just to use it as a door stop, does this mean the hammer now has no purpose ? " This is easily refuted. As there is only one god in existence, suppose that I am the only person capable of interacting with this hammer. Ergo, God retains his control over meaning simply because he is the only omnipotent/omnipresent entity CAPABLE of using us. Thank you.
Without God life has no meaning or value

Pro says "As you can see, my Con's first two contentions are made in error. His points (God's Existence) are irrelevant to the nature of the topic." If Pro doesn't want to use the first 2 arguments I objected too, that's fine by me. Pro takes me to task, for using the wrong terminology when I said double standard. Pro seems pretty smart to me, I think they understood my argument and this is just a semantic point. I shall change my terminology from double standard to special pleading. http://rationalwiki.org... So now it should read like this......... Claim 3) "Only God can given meaning to life, if a person or humans make up meaning to life, its just made up and not real" This is just special pleading. If a personal being such as a human gives purpose to something its fake, if a personal being such as God gives purpose to something its real. Pro says "Suppose that I created a hammer. The hammers purpose is so I can hammer nails. Without me, the hammer loses all meaning." I think this is a non sequitur and I will show why. What if some one else users the hammer to hammer different nails, or hammer something different, or just to use it as a door stop, does this mean the hammer now has no purpose ? What if Pro dies and some one else uses the hammer to do what ever, does this mean the hammer no longer has purpose just because Pro ceased to exist ? Of course not. This shows Pros claim false when they say "Without me, the hammer loses all meaning."" Pros' argument can be summarised as follows 1) Pro creates a hammer for a purpose 2) Pro ceases to exist 3) Therefore the hammer can no longer have meaning absent Pro But the conclusion is false, cause the hammer can have purpose absent Pro. Now lets consider........ 1) God creates life for a purpose 2) God ceases to exist 3) Therefore life can have no meaning absent God But the conclusion is false, cause life can have purpose absent God. I look forward to Pros' response.
Without God life has no meaning or value

I myself am not a Christian. However, for the sake of the resolution, "Without God Life has no Meaning or Value", we MUST assume that- A. God Exists. This is because we are not debating over the existence of god, we are debating over the meaning that God provides. We can only do so if we take on a theist viewpoint, and assume the existence of such a deity. B. The Bible (God's Word) is True. As I will be taking on the Christian viewpoint, God's existence should automatically infer that god's word is also true. ===Rebuttals=== As you can see, my Con's first two contentions are made in error. His points (God's Existence) are irrelevant to the nature of the topic. My opponent also claims that the belief that god and only god can give meaning to life, and not any other being, is a double standard. However, my opponent's claims only serve to prove that my opponent has no idea what the term "Double Standard" means. "The term double standard, coined in 1912, refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference." [1] As god is not simply "one group of people", but rather, according to Christian Theology, an omnipotent/present deity, one can easily argue that there IS a "good reason for having said difference". To say that a human can provide what god provides is comparable to saying that grass can provide what a human provides. ===Pro's Case=== "...God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day..." [2] Suppose that I created a hammer. The hammers purpose is so I can hammer nails. Without me, the hammer loses all meaning. Humans are analogous. We follow the will of our creator, and, if our creator ceases to exist, we lose all purpose. Thank you. ===Sources=== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.biblebrowser.com...
Without God life has no meaning or value

It is often claimed that "Without God life has no meaning or value". I as the Con will seek to show that this claim is not justified My opponent as the Pro will seek to show that this claim is justified Definitions God = Classic Theism, All good, all powerful, all knowing, eternal, uncreated. Opening Argument........ Common arguments given to support the claim that "Without God life has no meaning or value" include...... Claim 1) "A problem is that if God does not exist then there is no immortality" But what is the argument here, that meaning and value are contingent on duration ? How so ? No justification is given for this link, it just asserts it then moves on. Claim 2) "If God does not exist, then evil doers can get away from being punished" Again, what is the argument here ? 1) If God does not exist then evil doers can go unpunished. 2) I don't like the idea of evil doers not getting punished. 3) Therefore God exists. This is just an appeal to emotion http://en.wikipedia.org...... Consider this argument....... 1) If I die, then I won't be able to enjoy all I have worked for. 2) I don't like the idea of not being able to enjoy all that I have worked for. 3) Therefore I wont die. Claim 3) "Only God can given meaning to life, if a person or humans make up meaning to life, its just made up and not real" This is just a double standard. If a personal being such as a human gives purpose to something its fake, if a personal being such as God gives purpose to something its real. I look forward to Pros response.
Should The Definition of Bullying Be Changed

My final argument is going to be short and to the point. NO ONE GIVES CARES ABOUT CHANGING THE DEFFINITHION OF BULLYING! !! This "history lesson" was actually completely on topic i was trying to see if you could comprehend bullying on a national scale. Germany (and the central powers) bullied the rest of the world and only when everyone else fought back (not with legal action but with force ie "a swift kick to the groin") were they able to defeat hitler. Also you cannot say that legal action would have worked because that is what they did in WWI it obviously did not work or there would have been no WWII. Anyway the bully is stronger in one or more aspect or it would just be some kid who calls people names but no one Really cares. Might I ask what did you do to this bully? Based off how much I have learned about you over the past few days I feel sure that you politely asked him to stop and attempted to give him a olive branch by asking him to tea. Now I'm going to quote Confucius "Life is really simple but we insist on making it complicated" it is people like you who make life like this. Not being able to understand the basic consteps of life and making something out of nothing.
Should The Definition of Bullying Be Changed

I accept your request and yes, my bully is stronger than myself in the aspects he/she takes advantage of. Furthermore, you suggest one should put excessive time and funding to a legal team in cases of bullying? Perhaps you may know one or two people with that dedication but to the general population of the world that's just unreasonable. A legal team honestly has no business in an average case of bullying in school or on the web unless in extreme cases such as excessive danger to them personally. That's not something that happens often. Those who do need that support, feel free to use it but keep in mind these Oxford and Google definitions you detest are directed at the average person. The average person doesn't have that extreme a necessity. Now do not misinterpret, it is different to get your own friends to stand as one against a bully. You are close, no money or courts are involved, and extremes lie. That aren't in the picture. As a bully is stronger than his or her victim, that help may be needed. Back to the point, another hole in your legal action argument is if one is stronger than a bully, should they not prove that? Running to a legal team or outside support can more than likely give the bully satisfaction at you running. Also, the unfortunate truth in today's society is that often some "honeyed words" can get a bully out of most situations of trouble if he or she has an adequate amount of friends as you mentioned. I've payed witness to this occurrence. If one is truly stronger than the bully as you say, and they stand by in a pacifist manner as you suggest what would be accomplished? History proves this point. In the initial German conquest of World War II (you will notice the clear parallel between a war and bullying), did Adolf Hitler not simply have Europe handed to him because of lack of action from other nations? Was he not a bully on an international scale? He was given this exact pacifist treatment you have suggested and it was not until action was taken that he was stopped short through military intervention. This war can almost be an exact parallel to bullying and its solution. Adolf Hitler wanted power and bullied on a national scale to do it. He was stopped by people putting their foot down and not simply putting it in the hands of lawyers to write about. In our local problems of bullying this has worked, again I have seen it. There is a second point we can gain from the Second World War as well. Alone, the allied nations could not defeat Hitler, a bully, who was stronger than them. Only together could they do so. If they had not stood as the allies, Hitler could very well have conquered the world because he was stronger. A victim can acknowledge that strength and then get localized help to stop this. Together, without extreme expensive legal action, a group stands as one stronger than a bully. I reiterate alone one is not. Again I will quote history "united we stand divided we fall". As one against a bully we are weaker, as one against it we are stronger.
Should The Definition of Bullying Be Changed

My opponent might find it difficult to comprehend, but when you are defining a bully as stronger than the victim you are siding with the bully and likely breaking your morals. Responding to my opponents "destruction of my second paragraph". The victim doesn't necessarily need to take out time or money to sue somebody. Obviously you would need to talk to a lawyer, but in this case it could be arranged that your legal team take a portion of the financial compensation in exchange for legal aid. I am actually currently speaking with an individual who is currently contemplating about a preposition of a civil suit. Now back to the topic. You should not be able to define a victim as weaker than a bully. The bully is the insecure one, so how can you define the guy doing stupid things as stronger than a victim. In many cases people are bullied due to "mental power and political strength". I have been bullied for both those reasons. I was bullied for sticking up for myself. It is disgusting and primitive that one would want to define a victim as "weaker", which is exactly what Oxford Dictionaries and Google are doing, and my opponent is justifying. My opponent has been bullied according to his last comment so I would respectfully request to ask if you see yourself as weaker in all or most aspects in comparison to the individual who has harassed you and committed crimes upon you. May I remind my opponent that you cannot compare bullying to a war. Wars are a way of resolving conflict when diplomatic relations are no longer possible between two nations. Bullying however is a conflict in which one person provokes another person to bring themselves up because they lack esteem and/or mental stability. Though people die as a result of bullying and wars you cannot and should not compare the two. In response to my opponents statement that things can be resolved by a "swift kick to the groin'(which I would highly recommend he retracts) I will state what I have previously stated. If you physically harass a bully back then you are just as bad as the bully and events can be switched up by the bully and eyewitnesses(whom are likely his friends) to make it seem as if the bully is innocent when in actuality you are. Just because everybody doesn't feel like committing aggravated battery upon the bully doesn't mean that they are weaker because they stick up for themselves in other ways. My opponent states that they are weaker because most individuals want a diplomatic resolution that doesn't involve injured groins. In conclusion, a bully is weaker than the victim because he or she lacks esteem and/or mental stability resulting in poor choices by the individual. It is senseless to blame the victim because they choose a different method that will be far more effective than kicking someone in the groin. Yet again more reasoning I am correct and my opponent centimes to be wrong, and another example of petty revenge that won't result in a long term solution. I strongly encourage you to agree with me and visit changethemeaning.wordpress.com/home.
Should The Definition of Bullying Be Changed

lacking in force, strength, mental power, or little political strength are a few words to describe someone who is weak. It is not only in one aspect. In no way is going to an athourity an effective result. The bully will hate you more and be more of a nuisance to you. You also say that revenge is "petty" might I remind you most wars are result of revenge and there are very few wars I would call petty. Saying things like "knock it off" don't work I'll agree but there are most certainly better ways than going to a teacher. In my times of being bullied the teacher was actually the one saying knock it off or even don't tell on people.The way to get rid of a school bully is to show him/her that they are not better than you and you have put your foot down. An easy way of doing this is by giving a swift kick to the groin. But if you are a fan of pacifism then by all means tell a teacher and you will be the one with a sore groin the point I'm making is take matters into your own hands. The girl in England didn't do what you said she took matters into her own hands granted she didn't do it the way I would but it is closer to my way. I'm going to ask a question to completely obliverate your second to last paragraph. How many people do you actually know who are willing to put in the time and money to go through the process to sue someone. They aren't really stronger if they are allowing the bully to walk a lover them. In my mind that makes them weaker because thy can't or won't stand up for themselves.
Should The Definition of Bullying Be Changed

Just because a victim cannot stand up for themselves it does not make them weaker than the bully. A victim can be afraid because the bully is better than the victim in a certain respect, but in order for someone to be weaker than another person one needs to be weaker than the other person in all respects. Also, going to and adult or someone with authority is a very effective way to stand up for yourself. If you attack the bully physically or mentally you can "get even" through petty revenge but if you tell an adult or someone with authority they ave the ability to either punish him through school or take the bully to court to to the fact that the victim vigorously reported to someone of the occurrences. What good will telling a bully to "knock it off" if they thrive off of your response. The sensible thing to do is receive justice in a way that can be documented. Therefore, when a victim tells somebody it makes them stronger not weaker. There is a 25 year old girl from London suing the kids who bullied her for 25 million dollars. Do you think that happened from her confronting a bully and saying "knock it off". It is also unfair to state that a victim is weaker based on something as foolish as they decided to stick up for themselves in a different way. If you of to an adult things are resolved a lot quicker and it allows for documentation that can be taken to a civil court or even criminal. If you go to an adult there is no question whatsoever that the bully was picking on you unprovoked and a defense attorney for the bully cannot change the order of events.(ex. it could go from bully pushes victim and victim says knock it off and push bully back to victim pushes bully an bully is now the victim) Even children who put up with the bully are stronger than the bully. Him/her have a stronger will and them siting back will eventually make the bully ignore him/her and will eventually leave them alone. It is obvious to see that the definition is an old definition that should be fixed because it is offensive to those who have been bullied.
Should The Definition of Bullying Be Changed

The definition of bully "a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker."(Source Oxford Dictionary and Google Definitions). How is it possible that one would have the audacity to call a victim "weaker" than the persecutor. Just because one is perceived to be weaker by the bully doesn't mean that they are. It is unethical to demean a victim of bullying, yet we are allowing Oxford dictionary and Google to do so. How could we do such a thing. We need to take a stand. Why would one want to call a victim "weaker" than a bully. We are all flawed in one way or another, that doesn't make somebody weaker. A more appropriate term would be "perceived to be weaker by the bully" rather than "weaker". If one agrees that someone is weaker than the one bullying them then they are stating that they side with the bully. We as a society are agreeing that the bully is correct, the victim is indeed weaker, which is not true. Our country spends millions on anti-bullying campaigns, but it is hypocritical to do that and later call the victim "weaker" than the bully. It is important that we change the definition. Picture the outrage on the faces of bullied children's parents when they see that Google is calling their child "weaker" than the bully. We need to take a stand that the bully is the one picking the fight do that makes the bully weaker than the innocent victim whom is perceived as weaker not "is weaker." If you feel strongly about this please visit changethemeaning.wordpress.com for more information