BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Something can't come from nothing

GenesisProject, You did not read the rules prescribed for this debate, as is obvious by the fact that you seem to think the burden of proof lies with me. My position was to disprove the verity of your position, as represented by the statement “The con position will be to prove that this incredibly prevalent argument cannot be valid, again, on a purely logical basis. I will be taking this position.” That is to say, I’m in no way obligated [by the rules of this debate] to prove something can come from nothing. I’m obligated to prove the cosmological argument illogical. The burden of proof lies with you. You are to defend the position, I am to attack it. You accepted the debate on this premise. If you were unclear on the resolution provided, you should have questioned it in the comments, not wasted an entire round attacking something irrelevant. I reread the content of the resolution, and I do not believe I was ambiguous in the format of this debate. Your misunderstanding is yours to bear. I have presented my arguments against the cosmological argument, and you have wasted one of the rounds you could have spent attempting to debase those arguments. Because my initial arguments remain intact, and in fact, completely unaddressed, I see no reason to present further material. All I can do at this point is recommend you reread the resolution before posting another argument.
Something can't come from nothing

The debate is : "Something can't come from nothing" You took the side of "con" which means you are saying that something CAN come from nothing. It is a fact that something can come from something else. Matter can come from energy and energy can come from matter. The problem we have is that we don't have a real definition of "nothing". What is a nothing? Nobody has ever had a "nothing" to examine to see if something can come from it. By taking the "con" side, you are making a claim that something can come from nothing, yet, you don't have a physical way to prove such a claim. It would be impossible for you to meet your burden of proof. The pro position is that "something can't come from nothing". My burden of proof it to prove that something can't come from nothing. The Universe started as a singularity. Even though the singularity was smaller than an atom, it would still count as "something". If that's the case, there has never been, in the entire history of time, a "nothing" for something to come out of. Therefor, logic dictates that something can't come from nothing, since "nothing" is impossible to exist. Let X=Nothing. Let Y=Something, Let T=Time Proposition 1: The entire Universe came from Y Proposition 2: At the moment the Universe expanded, T=0 Proposition 3: Y existed when T=0 Proposition 4: Y can never be created or destroyed Proposition 5: T=infinite Proposition 6: X and Y can not co-exist at the same time Proposition 7: If T=infinite and Y=can not be created or destroyed (Y is a constant), Y will always exist. Proposition 8: If Y has always existed and will always exist, X has never existed. Proposition 9: If Y will aways exist, X can never exist Proposition 10: If X can never exist, X can't exist Proposition 11: If X can't exist, there is no such thing as X. Proposition 12: If X doesn't exist, Y can't come from X. Conclusion: Y can't come from X (Something can't come from nothing.)
Something can't come from nothing

We will be debating here whether it is logical for "something" to come from "nothing". I've heard variations of this argument by the religious hundreds of times, but it usually boils down to the following: we exist, and the universe exists, and nothing can't cause something, therefore something must have created everything, and that something must have been my particular god.For this debate, we're ignoring the last bit there, where they use this logical leap as proof for one particular god among the thousands that are worshiped by man. Partially because I find that portion of the argument untenable, but also because it's extraneous. We'll leave that for another debate.The pro position will be to support the idea that "something can't come from nothing, therefore something had to create everything" on a purely logical basis. The con position will be to prove that this incredibly prevalent argument cannot be valid, again, on a purely logical basis. I will be taking this position.CITATION IS NOT NEEDED. WE WILL BE SCORED ON OUR OWN USE OR ABUSE OF LOGIC.Structure will be as follows:Round one:Acceptance/No arguments (using this round for presenting an argument will result in a loss)Round two:Introductory arguments.Round three:Rebuttal to introductory arguments.Round Four:Closing arguments - Addressing your opponents argument as they structured it in all previous rounds.
Should Human Cloning Be Illegal

(I am for making it illegal. Sorry if that wasn't clear!) Human cloning should illegal for the following reasons 1. We are not sure cloning is safe: even though it has been successful in multiple occasions. More times than not, it has failed. Left the clone injured or dead or the person being cloned injured or dead. Or creating beings that need to be put out of misery for their sad existence, constant pain. This 'opportunity' is causing death and suffering! The question of our morals when we could really take all those questions away, in exchange for this one! 2. Identity. What if there becomes a point where you can't tell who the clone is? Think of it this way, a crime was commited and a man who had been cloned has found guilty. The only problem: Did he or his clone commit the crime? They would eventually have to kill a being that could very well be innocent. And what about the clones themselves? Will they identify as a clone of that person or someone else entirely. Will they be treated as slaves? Killed if for material? Aren't they people as well as anyone else, just the same as someone else 3. What is the PURPOSE of cloning. Why have something that will only cost your country and you money and could very well result in failure or pain. Would we kill them? Have them as slaves? Or will they just be people? Will there be a clone rebellion? Will it be only to say 'A ha w shave done it! We have cloned someone!' That's not what science is for. Due to all the points I've made, I rest my case.
I don't know what to believe on the subject of...God. [Does this even qualify as a debate? D=]

Wow, thanks buddy. You didn't need to go all Glory-road on me, but okay. I didn't post this to argue with anyone, merely to gain a better understanding of maybe other people's perception of God, or their disbelief's in God. If you 'took the challenge'[made it sound like a game show there, because obviously that's what you're treating it as] to simply 'win another debate, woo!' I think that's pretty selfish of you. Okay, so..you proved that I really don't know what to believe on the subject of God. If you want to go all 'HARDCORE. I WANT TO PROVE THAT SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE.' Maybe I do know, I just don't know how to express it. So to indeed prove that I have absolutely no idea. Because in this case, you would be right if I were in a "50%-50%" stage. If I am in a "60%-40%", seeing as Unitarian Universalism is a religion, and it's basically the concept of taking certain beliefs from different religions to suit one's needs, which I could in fact do[For example, believing that there is a 'higher power' (Christianity) but believing he is not a divine individual...whatever(Atheism)=Agnosticism. {I THINK}], I would be correct, in my case. So you would have to dig inside my head, maybe do a couple scientific tests, figure out what's really going on in there. Maybe use your oh-so-nifty telepathic powers to read my mind. Trust me, I wouldn't attempt, it's quite messy in there. That's how you would prove that I without doubt have absolutely no idea what to believe. Since you can't do that, eh, I dunno what lies ahead for you. And I didn't post this current entry to alienate anyone. But when people treat my life as a game, or a token, or something for personal gain, it sort of creates a grudge with me. So if you want to be like, 'the person who wins the most arguments' please try not to do it with my entries. Go argue for genetically modified corn, or something. And I have no idea what I just said in this little paragraph. It came from my noggin of useless information. O_o;;;;; I am not discouraged.
I don't know what to believe on the subject of...God. [Does this even qualify as a debate? D=]

Wrong zerosmelt, but close. the resolution is "I (Mellers23, the one who wrote the sentence, the instigator) don't know what to believe on the subject of...God." The parenthesis on the rest implies it is not part of the resolution. Since I am Pro, I have to argue that it is indeed the case that you do not (present tense) know what to believe on the subject of God. To establish this, I provide your own admission, "I really have no specific stand on this subject." This admission would mean either a, you do not know enough to take such a specific stand, or b, you do know, but don't have the moral courage to admit it and actual take the stand. Since the latter would mean you are unlikely to have enough courage to post this debate either, it is clearly problematic, creating a great deal of evidence in favor of the former. Also, you state specifically "I didn't understand the magnitude of the subject." Unless you wish to argue you were a liar in Round One, it would appear you forfeit the debate. Now that the formalities of debating are settled, I'll give you what you wanted, or what I can provide of it, my own thoughts on the subject of God. First, no evidence of such a being has been brought forward, and second, most conceptions of such a being are logically contradictory. I'll give you one example of an airtight argument against many conceptions of God: " An OMNIPOTENT being has all powers imaginable, and can perform any ACTION. CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent. Therefore, contradiction. 1. O->A (assumption, definition of omnipotent) 2. A->C (Assumption, dare you to defy it.) 3. ~C (assumption, definition of omnipotent) 4. O (Assumption of the existence of God) 5. A (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic. 6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule). 7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises). " This immediately invalidates any conception of God as omnipotent, which would invalidate most of the mainstream monotheistic religions today, including Christianty, Islam, and Judaism. I am quite open to any comers giving me their own conceptions of "god" or gods, most of them can be disproven almost as easily.
I don't know what to believe on the subject of...God. [Does this even qualify as a debate? D=]

I'm gonna go con, because I really have no specific stand on this subject. I was born into a closet-Christian family. My dad grew up Christian, I think my mom became auto-Christian when they got married in a church. [I prefer to get married next to a waterfall in a rainforest.] So anyway. I was the conformist little child, forced into the religion. We went to church nearly every weekend, and as I grew up, we went less often. Age 5-11 was about when we went every weekend, so I spent a fair amount of time on the religious front. In most 'Religious' families that I meet, the children have a firm understanding of God, Jesus, and the whole concept/story line. But for me, it never really clicked. I sat in church, but I treated it as life, just something that people do. Such as riding a horse or watching a ball game. I didn't understand the magnitude of the subject. It never really hit me that some man died to save specifically me. I just don't understand, and that's probably why I don't believe...yet. I don't really have a religion right now, because I don't know much about any of the religions, so I can't pick. I'm just confused, and don't have a clear understanding of anything having to do with religion. Perhaps, if my 'challenger'[please don't pummel me into the ground, I mean no offense by this] could provide a clear perspective whether they believe in God or not, maybe it'd help me out. So thanks, I hope to hear from someone soon. =D
I don't know what to believe on the subject of...God. [Does this even qualify as a debate? D=]

" Uhhh. 'Cause. There's some research for you to debate about. ;D Well, actually. Because I never wanted a debate. And then you started the quotes thing. >.>; [:" It does not follow that because you did not wish a debate it is my fault that we are no longer debating. In fact the opposite follows. " I think so, yes. Well, you even called yourself selfish." Selfish=/= mean. They are different terms. "Don't insult yourself, it's bad for your health. >=[ " I do not consider "selfish" an insult. " Pffft. I'm STILL in high school and I even have a job." Do you also have siblings you are required to care for most of the day every day? " Yeah, well. I don't know anything about religion, so I can't express it, can I?" Which was precisely my point. If you did know, you could express it, you can't, so you don't. " Plato, and all of those other people were in the past. ..Logic is boring. Be creative. Come up with some things yourself. " Logic is a tool of creativity. " OH! I think you meant 'what'. So...what do you plan on doing down the road?" Creating a place where humans can be free for once? " I claim. That you shouldn't believe what you hear, and only half of what you see." Everything you see, and everything you hear, is true, the problem is making sure that you are quite clear on what you have seen and what you have heard. For example, if you hear someone say "X=y," it is the case that someone must have said x=y, but it is not necessarily the case that x in fact equals y, as you "heard" the fact that someone said it, you did not "hear" the truth itself so to speak. "And what's a straw man???" A rebuttal to an argument nobody made. " Do you have authority issues" Hmm... yes :D. "Please, elaborate how you're going to live in this world without being ruled by anybody at all." Well, it's not easy, but killing or taking away power projection from those who attempt to rule me seems to be the only way to go about it. Of course I must first gain enough power to be able to do so. And that takes time.
I don't know what to believe on the subject of...God. [Does this even qualify as a debate? D=]

"Lol good one." :D "Wait how is that my fault?" Uhhh. 'Cause. There's some research for you to debate about. ;D Well, actually. Because I never wanted a debate. And then you started the quotes thing. >.>; [: "Mean?" I think so, yes. Well, you even called yourself selfish. Don't insult yourself, it's bad for your health. >=[ "No, I do not. I just graduated from high school, I will be taking a significant courseload at a community college in the fall, I intend to enjoy the summer. Occupations shall be taken care of in good time." Pffft. I'm STILL in high school and I even have a job. I work at a pet shop, it's very fun. ^_^ "I did not claim you knew everything, or could express everything, only that you could express anything you happen to know....'And I am not treating "your life" as a means, merely this debate, which you have surrendered to the website.' " Ah-hah! Oh wait. ...I dunno. =| "I did not claim you knew everything, or could express everything, only that you could express anything you happen to know." Yeah, well. I don't know anything about religion, so I can't express it, can I? Sha-bam! That's what the post was about, anyway? =P "When did I mention science or the past? It is logic that things must concur with, logic from the facts of reality." Plato, and all of those other people were in the past. ..Logic is boring. Be creative. Come up with some things yourself. "Not an excuse, unless you were using it as an example of something you recognize as bad :D" Maybe I do, I just didn't tell you that part. ':D'. "A few. But not of nearly the quality that can be had if I succeed in hat I'm trying to do down the road." Wow. Everyday is fun for me. :You're a winner!!! And I don't understand the second sentence, care to explain? OH! I think you meant 'what'. So...what do you plan on doing down the road? I'm going to be a world traveler. That's going to be loads of fun. n_n; & Yes, you could only go back to Hitler. Oh shame, I would shoot him. =[ "Straw man, I claimed you surrendered the content of this debate, not your life :D." I claim. That you shouldn't believe what you hear, and only half of what you see. Believe the bad half, imagine the good. -.o; And what's a straw man??? "I need no pet gerbil, but I am very very pick at defining "myself." Specifically, to be happy I must own ALL of myself, this means no taxes, no provisos, absolutely no initiation of force by the government." Do you have authority issues? Please, elaborate how you're going to live in this world without being ruled by anybody at all. It sounds like a good idea to me, too. I just don't know how. ..and pet gerbils are fun. My neighbor has one. [x
I don't know what to believe on the subject of...God. [Does this even qualify as a debate? D=]

"I'd tell you you're self-righteous, but you're too high on your horse to hear it. " Lol good one. " We aren't debating anymore thanks to you. Hellooooooo? " Wait how is that my fault? " Wow. You must think you are pretty cool. I think you are too! =D Except you're kinda mean. Oh well. " Mean? " Who takes time out of their lives to copy other people's words, put them into quotes, and comment on them? It's very tiring. Ragnar..do you have an occupation?" No, I do not. I just graduated from high school, I will be taking a significant courseload at a community college in the fall, I intend to enjoy the summer. Occupations shall be taken care of in good time. " I'm not capable of expressing everything, because I don't know EVERYTHING" I did not claim you knew everything, or could express everything, only that you could express anything you happen to know. " Buddy, have some sunshine in your life. Everything does not have to concur with scientific-ness, or the past, whatever. " When did I mention science or the past? It is logic that things must concur with, logic from the facts of reality. "Plato..uhh. I don't know him, why should I believe what he says?" You shouldn't. But you do. His philosophical tradition has found it's climax in you shouting the glories of whim. "I never said I was Unitarian Universalist, I used it as an example." Not an excuse, unless you were using it as an example of something you recognize as bad :D "Have you ever had a single solitary day of fun in your lifetime? " A few. But not of nearly the quality that can be had if I succeed in hat I'm trying to do down the road. "And this is serious, I want an answer. If you had the choice to go back in time, would you kill baby Hitler? You'll vote no, I know it." That depends. I'm assuming I can only go back once right? Is Hitler my only option or can I go back to any time? If Hitler's the only option, I'd go back and do it. If not, I'd go back further in German history, and kill Immanuel Kant. See, if he never existed, there would never have been a foundation for Hegel and Marx to build on. And no Hegel and no Marx means no Hitler and no Stalin. " Bahaha. I have not surrendered my life to this site!" Straw man, I claimed you surrendered the content of this debate, not your life :D. "You seem like the type of person who needs nothing but themselves and the attention of a pet gerbil to be happy." I need no pet gerbil, but I am very very pick at defining "myself." Specifically, to be happy I must own ALL of myself, this means no taxes, no provisos, absolutely no initiation of force by the government.
I don't know what to believe on the subject of...God. [Does this even qualify as a debate? D=]

"You didn't need to go all Glory-road on me, but okay"? Huh? Never saw that movie. but yes, I did, as a formality. "I didn't post this to argue with anyone, merely to gain a better understanding of maybe other people's perception of God, or their disbelief's in God" I know, i was simply dispensing with the formality of a debate :D "If you 'took the challenge'[made it sound like a game show there, because obviously that's what you're treating it as] to simply 'win another debate, woo!' I think that's pretty selfish of you." I am a pretty selfish person, in fact, an absolutely selfish one, without exception- far too much to do anything JUST for a win :D. "Maybe I do know, I just don't know how to express it." You are capable of language, clearly, so anything you know you are capable of expressing. "If I am in a "60%-40%", seeing as Unitarian Universalism is a religion, and it's basically the concept of taking certain beliefs from different religions to suit one's needs" Whim is not knowledge. It is indeed the basis of the philosophical tradition of Plato, Kant, William James, and every other thinker who has tried to destroy the concept. Taking random ideas completely out of their contexts and smashing them together is multiple charges of whim, which would make Unitarian Universalism even worse than believing in a single religion on the scale of epistemology. "For example, believing that there is a 'higher power' (Christianity) but believing he is not a divine individual" Define divine, and all the powers of this higher power. An undefined belief is not knowledge. ", I would be correct, in my case. So you would have to dig inside my head, maybe do a couple scientific tests, figure out what's really going on in there." No, I simply have to infer from your actions. Your actions (posting this debate) indicate you are in doubt. Much as I could conclude an admiration of Hitler in someone's mind if their actions consisted of advocating a Final Solution Version 2.0. "And I didn't post this current entry to alienate anyone. But when people treat my life as a game, or a token, or something for personal gain, it sort of creates a grudge with me. So if you want to be like, 'the person who wins the most arguments' please try not to do it with my entries." In case you haven't noticed, the second half of my first round argument gave you what you wanted. Is it so wrong that I have what I wanted in exchange, especially since the website explicitly advocates my use and not yours? And I am not treating "your life" as a means, merely this debate, which you have surrendered to the website.
Australia should vote for the Liberals over Labor

My opponent brings nothing to support his argument, and I would like to see it because I find the labor party to be better at handling money. The labor party states "We will close tax loopholes that cost the public billions of pounds a year, and we will bring in tough penalties for those who abuse the tax system. This will include ending unfair tax breaks used by hedge funds, and cracking down on disguised employment. We will make it harder for tax dodgers to hide their identities by making country-by-country reporting information publicly available." Not only that but they will also increase the minimum wage which would help the poor. The nature of the liberal party is to not give equal opportunities to everyone. They want to focus on businesses making the more money, rather than helping those in actual need. They also believe in less money for health services which is a big deal because, we of course need optimal health for comfortable living. Sources- http://www.smh.com.au... http://www.labour.org.uk...
God exists

Ok first of all, omnipotence is a paradox and isn't really possible. For example, Can God create a rock that he can't lift no matter what? If yes, there is something he can't do, lift the rock. If no, he can't lift the rock breaking the omnipotence. Also, this is more of a shrodingers cat question because he both exists and doesn't. Until someone find definitive proof for either side, the argument can never end, so for now the answer is both.