BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The existence of God is a logical truth.

Okay, I'll present my case, a variation of St. Anselm's ontological proof. I'll write it in syllogistic form, so its easy to follow. 1. God is either real, or he is a figment of the imagination of a religious person. 2. God is by definition, unimaginable. 3. He can't simply he a figment of our imagination. 4. God is real. Also, from St. Anselm (variation, again) 1. God is the greatest conceivable thing. 2. It is greater to be existent than not. 3. God must exist. Here's another popular one, also variated, it is influenced by St. Thomas of Aquinas and Avicenna. 1. The universe is made up of many beings. 2. Each being must have come from another being. 3. This would continue endlessly, unless there was one being that was the original creator. 4. There must be an original creator. Finally, this is from me just now, influenced by Descartes, but I'm sure someone has come up with something similar. 1. God is perceived to exist by many in the world. 2. This perception is certainly existent in the minds of those who perceive it. 3. God certainly exists in the minds of many, if only as a false perception. Quod erat demonstrandum My opponent's case: "First, the whole notion of divine creator is unnecessary, religon is a throw back to the time before science and reason, since that time, we have gained a rather good understanding of our universe, and the natural laws that govern it, the "God of the Gaps" and metaphysics have been replaced by knowledge and understanding." Yes, we have good understanding of our Universe, through empiricism. Empiricism is not logic. You cannot prove anything using empirical evidence. For example, I see paper is white, but I cannot prove that to be true. There is the possibility that I am hallucinating. However, some things, like God, can be proved with logic, and I just did that. Anyways, the rules of logic are natural laws of our Universe, and I used them to prove the existence of God. "Furthermore on the off chance that "higher beings" exist,they would not be like the one(s) described in the error-ridden, self-contradictory holy text of the Abrahamic faiths. "God" is described as prefect, how can "perfect" beings make mistakes, let alone grieve over them. The faithful of the Abrahamic faiths claim that humanity was made in "God's" Image,but upon reading the holy texts, a more logical conclusion would be that man, and it was most certainly men, created a "God" in their image." I completely agree that much of the Bible, Quran, Torah, Talmud, and almost all other religious texts are horribly inaccurate. They were written by men, they are bound to have mistakes. Logic however is no more inaccurate than the laws of physics or mathematics. I used logic, and the inaccuracies of holy texts cannot prove me wrong.
The existence of God is a logical truth.

It is neither logical nor true that the deity worshipped by the abrahamic faiths is "God". First, the whole notion of divine creator is unnecessary, religon is a throw back to the time before science and reason, since that time, we have gained a rather good understanding of our universe, and the natural laws that govern it, the "God of the Gaps" and metaphysics have been replaced by knowledge and understanding. Furthermore on the off chance that "higher beings" exist,they would not be like the one(s) described in the error-ridden, self-contradictory holy text of the Abrahamic faiths. "God" is described as prefect, how can "perfect" beings make mistakes, let alone grieve over them. The faithful of the Abrahamic faiths claim that humanity was made in "God's" Image,but upon reading the holy texts, a more logical conclusion would be that man, and it was most certainly men, created a "God" in their image.
Cunfusion of religion.

I'd just like to reiterate my main points: again, the pro/con on this is messed up, from what I interpreted from the con's first post. Also, it's not confusion, just a general lack of knowledge. One new point, the Con posted an absolute by saying: Everyone in it's own matter contridicts the Bible in some form. this is a broad assumption, while it is possible, it's still an absolute. Thank You.
Cunfusion of religion.

(While my position says "Pro" I believe the topic starter was confused, I will just argue his arguments, on how I believe there is NOT a major confusion of religion). I first would like the thank you for opening this debate. Moving on, I will respond to your argument. Now, it seems as if you believe that everyone is confused about religion. I'd like to go ahead and make the statement that I believe: "I believe that people aren't confused about religion "per say", but those that see said confusion don't know what to make of it" I will commend the fact that in actuality, there are a lot of people that contradict their respective holy scriptures. However, this isn't confusion, it is merely a lack of knowledge. To be confused, one would have to learn the truth, and then debate whether or not to believe the truth, or how they were taught. There's really not a way to truly know the truth, therefore "Confusion" isn't happening, it's merely a lack of good knowledge. To answer a bit of your opening statement, the whole Christianity/Catholicism questioning. In the beginning of religion, polytheism dominated human world. People believed in multiple Gods. People of this sort lived in what is now southern Europe, and eastern Asia. This is a main reason why the big three monotheistic religions are based out of what is now Israel. Polytheists generally didn't like other religions, this is why there was a union of sorts in today's Israel. What would become: Islam Judaism and Christianity Believers in these three monotheistic religions banded together for awhile, because of hatred from polytheistic relgions. Of course, now followers of each aren't as close, but, this explains why the Old Testaments of each are generally the same. Jesus Christ became the dividing point. This is where there were more divisions made. Islam has Sunnis and Shiites (among others), and the prime division of Christianity, is the Catholics. To reiterate my main point, people aren't confused on the belief itself, they're just not generally knowledgeable.
Cunfusion of religion.

Everyone in it's own matter contridicts the Bible in some form. No matter how strong you feel about it or not. Dont believe me? Just ask someone how they think Jesus got here. The Bible says that Virgin Mary gave birth to him that would be the Cristian religion. But some "Chritstians" say that he has always been there. Which is the Catholic religion. I think everyone in the right mind is confused about religion. Personally I am Agnostic, which means I dont believe in God, yet I dont disbelieve in god, and I know more about most people. Feel free to debate me on the topic.
School should be eliminated.

I’m going to keep my last argument short, because I don’t feel like there’s a need to go into a large amount of detail. My opponent has forfeited round 3, and his round 2 doesn’t have many claims that support his argument. However, he did make some claims that need to be addressed. I will address his only claims he made in round 2 that support his argument. Argument Number One:Here are some claims my opponent made in round 2. “99% of people will never use math beyond precalc, only some sort of engineer will. ”“Only authors need to do the stupid writing crap they make us do. ”“Chemical equations are useless. Only a chemist or a scientist will use them. ”I’ve already went over the importance of an engineer, so I won’t go down that road again. Authors are important so they can write books that help us learn. When authors write books, that knowledge is passed on to many people, who then benefit from that knowledge. So, authors help society too. Chemists do things like manage our food, or perhaps use chemistry to analyze forensics. Of course they’re important. So here’s the thing. My opponent listed three careers, and attempted to state that classes taught in school are only important for people going down that career path. This is not true. Everyone from each of these career paths positively contribute to the furthering of knowledge and the continuation of our world. Therefore, people in these career fields help us all by simply working in their respective career fields. Of course, these career fields wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for school and education. Like my opponent said, engineers need knowledge of math past pre-calculus, authors need writing instruction, and chemists need to know chemical equations. Therefore, it is important that we have school. That way, we will be able to continue to have people enter these career fields after they gain an education. “The only reason school is still around is because the administrators make money off making kids miserable. “This is simply not true. I have already established that education is necessary for the continuation and development of our world as a whole. So, the administration plays a key role in our world. Whether it is teachers, principals, guidance counselors, or just general staff members, they all play a key role in making progress in the world in general. Besides, keeping schools around allows people to become employed at schools. Therefore, there’s more employment. Economically, this is a good thing. Not only are more people working, but more money will be poured into the economy because more people will have money to spend. Conclusion: I responded to everything my opponent said that was important to respond to (everything else was just “filler”). I also posted an argument in round 2 which was not responded to. Hence, there’s not anything that my opponent said that I have not shown to be false, nor is there anything that he said that is stronger than my argument.
School should be eliminated.

School should be eliminated because 90% of the stuff you "learn" in it you will never be used in real life. They did not teach me how to use a computer, I and pretty much everyone else did. That makes computer class useless. Considering that the government doesn't know how to launch a website and how to run itself, they should have no right to force us to go there to become idiots like them. The school system will never be fixed. 99% of people will never use math beyond precalc, only some sort of engineer will. Only authors need to do the stupid writing crap they make us do. Being able to write an expository will get you nowhere in life. Chemical equations are useless. Only a chemist or a scientist will use them. They are relatively easy to learn, but still a waste of time. The only reason school is still around is because the administrators make money off making kids miserable. People are forced to socialize with people they hate. Then there is this anti-bullying, zero tolerance crap. This might be a bit off topic. Not everyone will get along with everyone. But the brain washed government idiots don't realize that.
People should be 21 before getting their Learners

Hello and than you for starting this debate hope to have a clean less vulgar argument. My opponent explains that drivers should be eligible for their licenses younger that the age of 21. Coming from the UK ( as its seventeen to drive ) Car accidents are becoming more and more known especially on the younger youths, My opponent explains that this is due to inexperience and not immaturity, this is not always the case Because statistically 25% of all car accidents in the are due to the younger youths. I quote my opponent here "Also with the fact that the younger the driver the more they learn. Also when a teen is living home with their parents they will have the chance to be taught by them and which covers the age of 16 – 18 but when they move out they won't have anyone to teach them, they will be inexperienced and also with a lot of responsibilities so how will they learn"? Could it not be possible that they could learn driving from their parents without living at home?, or friends extended family etc?. As a seventeen year old I do not as yet drive and so do many people my age not drive either , mainly because its expensive and after you pay and retrieve your permit license your expected to pay for, insurance petrol, M.O T etc, which as you be aware s quite alt for someone who is young and just wants to be going out as teenager. The government has actually thought about raising the driving age here due to fatal accidents, drink driving etc.. This has became a common problem . Teenagers who are actually sensible drivers are struggling with the finance to cope with owning their own car this means that some could be driving illegally due to feeling they have to drive. In conclusion I stand firm on the opposition that young people should be twenty one or over to drive, when they can earn a career or job to actually pay for the car and gain maturity this will decrease the reckless driving occurring and accidents. I thank my opponent and looked forward to the rebuttal :) http://www.facebook.com...
People should be 21 before getting their Learners

I think people should be allowed to get their Learners before they turn 21 because this will be not convenient to them as they will be at a age of traveling to universities and TAFES, People who go to university will hardy have any time to learn how to drive!, and traveling to and from jobs or universities could be made more harder if public transport is used because if we use public transport we will have to travel with their times and not ours which will cause lots of problems like time congestion and how long would they depend on their parents because Do parents really want their kids to be dependent upon them for virtually everything until they go to college. Young drivers have more accidents because of lack of inexperience not because of lack of maturity. No matter at what age people start driving, they will have accidents because they have little experience, and just because younger people are always the easiest to blame , they get blamed since An adult who has just started to drive has as many crashes statistically as a young person. Many more elderly people are dangerous on roads than younger people as they have slower reaction times and can struggle with visibility. It is not ALL teens that are dangerous just a small percent. So is it fair to all those of who are not dangerous and sensible and cautious. Also with the fact that the younger the driver the more they learn. Also when a teen is living home with their parents they will have the chance to be taught by them and which covers the age of 16 – 18 but when they move out they won't have anyone to teach them, they will be inexperienced and also with a lot of responsibilities so how will they learn?
Bigfoot is real.

1. To truly ban the existence of the Bigfoot one would have had to scour and search every inch of the entire world to prove that a Bigfoot does not exist. To truly prove the existence of the Bigfoot one would have to scour and search every inch of the entire world to that a Bigfoot does not exist. On a second note, you are presupposing that the Con side must prove Bigfoot does not exist, this is false, they are not making the claim, the Pro side must prove so, the BOP from them remains unfulfilled. 2. Also, researchers all around the world are discovering new species of life every single day. This is an irrelevant contention. 3. Also, there have been numerous sightings, pictures and even videos that suggest that Bigfoot do exists.It is crucial that you prove these are authentic. now if you also have a facination with The Sasquatch ( and live in a place where american tv is present) then im sure you have seen "Finding BigFoot" a show on Animal Planet. The show centers around a group of four "BigFooters" named Matt Moneymaker Cliff Barakman James (Bobo) Fray and Ranae Holland. they go all round north america trying to prove that Bigfoot is real. Now Ranae the only female of the group does not truly believe that Sasquatches do really exist and give a little bit of insight on reality where the other three members are usually certain of the Bigfoot. In every single one of their episodes they have what they believe to be a bigfoot whether it be a "Knock" or a vocalization even one some occasions they catch a figure moving through the woods on the heat sensor or their night vision.Lol, see above response.
Bigfoot is real.

*I would first like to note this is purely for entertainment. I DO NOT believe in Bigfoot But there is and has always been a fascination with the Sasquatch in me there is evidence that suggest that they do exist.* 1. To truly ban the existence of the Bigfoot one would have had to scour and search every inch of the entire world to prove that a Bigfoot does not exist. 2. Also, researchers all around the world are discovering new species of life every single day. 3. Also, there have been numerous sightings, pictures and even videos that suggest that Bigfoot do exists. now if you also have a facination with The Sasquatch ( and live in a place where american tv is present) then im sure you have seen "Finding BigFoot" a show on Animal Planet. The show centers around a group of four "BigFooters" named Matt Moneymaker Cliff Barakman James (Bobo) Fray and Ranae Holland. they go all round north america trying to prove that Bigfoot is real. Now Ranae the only female of the group does not truly believe that Sasquatches do really exist and give a little bit of insight on reality where the other three members are usually certain of the Bigfoot. In every single one of their episodes they have what they believe to be a bigfoot whether it be a "Knock" or a vocalization even one some occasions they catch a figure moving through the woods on the heat sensor or their night vision. To sum it all up there just isn't enough evidence to prove that Bigfoot don't exist
Scientific Proof of the existence of God - Nostradamus and the Great USA Eclipse 2017

I'm extremely confused about how any of that ties into the topic. I read pro's post, and what i got from it was: Bush did 9/11, and therefore, I shouldn't fight religion, because the capitalists are evil. I don't think that bush did 9/11, the things that Pro listed could easily be a coincidence. Or, at least, it's more probable than Bush doing 9/11, then giving subtle hints that he did it. He wouldn't want people to know if he played a part in it. I didn't see any argument that talked about the scientific proof that I came here for (see title of this debate). I might be misreading what pro presented, but if that is the case, I'd like for pro to have some type of organizational structure in his debate posts. What would be even better is if he puts his arguments into the form of a syllogism. I, like pro, don't believe that capitalism is a good system. I have two reasons for my fighting against religion. The first is, I simply think that religion hurts people, and I've seen people go into depression because their parents believe in religious nonsense. My second reason is to oppose the Republican Party, which holds the majority of capitalists in the US. The Republican Party runs on the idea of being the "Party of Christian values" (which is just a softened up way of saying "we want Christian theocracy"). Thus, to fight against religion is to fight against the Republican Party, which is ultimately fighting the capitalists. The main quote that I took issue with in pro's post was "DIVINE INTERVENTION IS NECESSARY TO *GET THE BALANCE RIGHT*". I'd like to point out to pro that any God which is capable of divine intervention could help us whenever he wants. However, like a stubborn malovent child, he sits and watches things like: the holocaust, 9/11, the Cambodian genocide, etc. etc. etc. and more etc. If I misrepresented argument in this argument, pro, I'd strongly suggest that you correct me and explain clearly what you mean.
Scientific Proof of the existence of God - Nostradamus and the Great USA Eclipse 2017

https://farm9.staticflickr.com... Century VIII, Quatrain 66 {Benoist Rigaud edition de 1568} Quand l"escriture D.M.trouuee, Et caue antique lampe descouuerte, Loy, Roy,& Prince Vlpian esprouuee, Pauillon Royne & Duc sous la couuerte. When the inscription D.M. is found in the ancient cave, revealed by a lamp. Law, the King and Prince Ulpian tried, the Queen and Duke in the pavilion under cover. The D.M. stands for Depeche Mode... They are singing "ENJOY THE SILENCE" on TOP of the WORLD TRADE CENTER... and the ORIGINAL *KING OF TERROR* VIDEO by D.M. *sigh* Note: They are singing *ABOUT* the "King of Terror" (Note: See how the *DOUBLE* reveals the true nature of things.) The ****HOUSE of NOSTRADAMUS**** in SALON, FRANCE. Notice the WTC and the MUSICIANS in the BACKGROUND PAINTING !!!! http://photos1.blogger.com... The word TRAGEDY literally means "GOAT SONG". tragis oide: "goat song"; perhaps the derivation of the word "tragedy" (were goats awarded as prizes? does this refer to the ritualistic slaughter of the sacrificial animal? the scream that the goat makes when slaughtered?) also: Now what does the WORD "TRAGEDY" mean... "GOAT SONG"... STRANGE" http://www.wordinfo.info... and now notice BUSH is reading about a GOAT ****EXACTLY**** as the WTC burns. This is a question of *SECONDS*. DOUBLE! Notice also the REVERSALS in this scene... The DRUMMING OF THE TEACHER" THE KIDS READING TO HIM NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.... THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD SURROUNDED WITH THE POOREST AND MOST POWERLESS SEGMENT OF US SOCIETY (i.e., mainly black young girls), many of which will be condemned to a miserable existence, working *as if* they were slaves for a capitalist system that allows the Bushes and other rich BigWigs to lord over everyone. You people are fighting God when you should be fighting the capitalists... You are so wise. Obviously you are blind to the REAL ISSUES. DIVINE INTERVENTION IS NECESSARY TO *GET THE BALANCE RIGHT*
Scientific Proof of the existence of God - Nostradamus and the Great USA Eclipse 2017

"If we have to choose between the USA and the DPRK then the choice is obvious..." Agreed. "This is my personal condemnation of the USA and its capitalist ideology..." I agree, but what does this have to do with the topic? "BUT WHAT DOES THE ECLIPSE MEAN?" It means that the orbits of the sun and the moon allowed for the moon to cover the sun sometimes. Nothing more. "This is something science can never can answer, for it can answer only HOW but never WHY." There needn't be a "why" in natural phenomena. Saying there does need to be one will bring us back to the Stone Age arguments that say things like "where do rainbows come from? checkmate atheists". "Atheists reject determinism in history, nonetheless assume it for the study of nature, since their model of science is that of the natural sciences - most importantly biology and physics" I agree that determinism is assumed to study the natural world. However, I don't know what pro means when he says "Atheists reject determinism in history". I'd like for pro to expand on what he means by that. "AMERICA, TREAD VERY CAREFULLY FOR YOU ARE BLIND TO THE SIGNS FROM THE HEAVENS..." If God wanted us to find him, we wouldn't have to "tread carefully" to find his signs.
Scientific Proof of the existence of God - Nostradamus and the Great USA Eclipse 2017

If we have to choose between the USA and the DPRK then the choice is obvious... This is my personal condemnation of the USA and its capitalist ideology... It is based on "objective fact" rather than "subjective opinion" The first total solar eclipse to span the entire USA in 100 years... https://www.greatamericaneclipse.com... The modern man sees the importance of an eclipse merely in the fact that it happens. BUT WHAT DOES THE ECLIPSE MEAN? This is something science can never can answer, for it can answer only HOW but never WHY. Atheists reject determinism in history, nonetheless assume it for the study of nature, since their model of science is that of the natural sciences - most importantly biology and physics. FOR FULL EXPLANATION OF THE ECLIPSE https://storify.com... AMERICA, TREAD VERY CAREFULLY FOR YOU ARE BLIND TO THE SIGNS FROM THE HEAVENS...