BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
belief=be lie, as i dont know is true

Correct, a belief is not necessarily true, this is why it is termed belief, not knowledge. Christians have to believe in Christianity as scientific observers know that there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove God's existence. It is also true that we can not see in to the future, however we may run simulations in our mind, giving us the most likely outcomes. You say you know you are reading this, but are you? For example, you claim that if someone was reading this to you they could be lying, however you also argue that, because it is you reading this, you know that you are reading the real text. If the hypothetical "matrix" wanted you to live in a lie, why could it not have fabricated your sights? How can it be a fact you took a drug when you are lying about taking a drug? Take drug = !!Take drug You are saying that Take dug = !Take drug Which is incorrect as ! inverts the statement. This is like saying: 1 = !1 If the above was true nothing would happen, if false was true then no Universe would have existed. I know the Universe is true based on the assumption that I am true. We can never know what consciousness is, about how our feeling of "here" and "now" is created or even describe it. Based on the assumption that I am true, I can confidently say that the Universe is true, based on my observations. True, you have to believe what others are telling you, though you only have to believe that what they are telling you is correct. You check what you have been told against other sources.
belief=be lie, as i dont know is true

but if you had the ability to see things that has not yet happend you would know the future, no need to believe it or do any predictions belief is to accept an imaginary idea as true, not something, i dont have to believe that i am reading these Words on the screen, but i can deny it know=something=now its a fact that i just took a hard drug, im just lying about taking a drug unless you define universe as personal physical experience of now, how do you know a universe is true? there is no true or honest point to make beyond personal experience imagination is false i can at best believe what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it
belief=be lie, as i dont know is true

Imagination is an extremely powerful tool. To be able to see things that have not yet happened, to build objects and scenarios within our imagination is a defining part of humanity. Without imagination we would be no-where technologically nor culturally. Yes, by definition imagination is false, however that which we have imagined has the potential to become tangible. Belief is to accept that something exists or is true, not necessarily on the basis of evidence. For example, Christians will believe in God for different reasons, some for the fact that it explicitly states in the Bible that God exists, and some believe purely because they would like God to exist. If this debate is real then you have to trust science as it is correct, science is correct if science exists, it is a fact we live in this Universe, science exists within this Universe, therefore science exists. Everything could be fake, this could be our imaginations, however THIS argument is taking place within this universe, fake or not. The only logical option is that everything does exist. Science is backed up with evidence, Science can be tested at any point, you could carry the tests out yourself. Science can not be altered, none of science is based on belief. The Bible however, may have been altered at any point in history. I find it extremely likely that the Bible was altered during the middle ages to keep control of the peasants under the feudal system, this is why certain sections are so careful to point out that we were put in our place by God. It is up to you whether or not to trust the Bible, it requires belief as there is not enough hard evidence to prove the contents factual. People choose to believe something for different reasons, some logical, some not. If you want my opinion, you should not 100% trust the Bible as it has been open to edits for over two millennia, people lie, people make up stories.
belief=be lie, as i dont know is true

Correct, once a belief is found to be true it is a fact.Also correct, predictions are unknown, they are merely a best guess. Yes, the future is largely unknown, however if we were able to build a complete simulation of the universe, or even a small subsystem, we could provide predictions with given certainty, this certainty can never be 100% as quantum effects are completely unpredictable.OK Neo, take the red pill have it your way. Once again, for you to not to have taken the pill despite the fact that you believe you have taken the pill would involve a web of lies. Your experiences must have been fabricated along with the minor effects that the pill, i.e. whether you taken it or not, will have on the Universe. Your symptoms will have to be simulated, the pill has to go somewhere, and even small considerations such as gravitational effects come into play.We must assume that life is true, there is nothing to suggest it is, there is nothing on the contrary. Only that we are having this argument, which is to suggest that life does exist. I do not assume anything in this, all of my arguments are based on logical conclusions.There is little more to be said, this is why arguments on the fundamental nature f reality can never go anywhere. If reality, life, is fake, then the "thing", be it God, aliens, simulators, will always stop us from knowing the truth. If reality is real, there will be no evidence to suggest so, there will be no underlying matrix, what you see on the surface is what you get, there is no proverbial pond of existence, with depths, merely a sliver of surface, a surface that we may observe, never truly knowing is there is a pond. So:IF: Reality = True THEN: No evidenceIF: Reality = False THEN: Evidence is hiddenI believe that this concludes the debate.
belief=be lie, as i dont know is true

np when you find it to be true is when its not a belief predictions are unknown i have no beliefs future is unknown, kNow=now if i am lying about taking the drug, is it then a fact? ok i did take the drug, and wait, but wait, did i take it? how do you assume anything if life isnt true? do you have a default assumption that life is false therfore you have to assume its true?
belief=be lie, as i dont know is true

My apologies, I was absent.Belief is not necessarily false, it may be found to be true. For example the idea of a Heaven, there is absolutely no way, by scientific means or other, that we may find out whether Heaven exists while we live. However once we die, if it turns out there is a Heaven, we will have a lot of very cocky people running around the place, shouting "I told you so".You are correct, we can not know exactly what will happen in the future, but as with belief, what we predict, might be true. You can believe whatever you like about the poisons, and that there is "something" creating a web of lies, but you believe this, you yourself argue that beliefs are not necessarily true, and to find whether your belief is correct we must wait until the future. Furthermore you argue that we can not know the future, therefore you have argued against yourself that what you have said is false.What exactly do you mean, "Am I lying about taking the drug?"? Are you using it as an example, showing that we can not know everything? I have no idea whether you have taken the drug or not. I have never been given the information.We have to assume life is true. We can never know whether it is true or not, this argument is taking place within life, so if life is not real, you are correct, but you also do not exist, if I am correct, we both exist and I have won. So you see, the only logical option in this dichotomy of thought, is mine.
God's existence

This is my first debate on God"s existence so I"m pretty much a newbie too :P. And don"t feel bad about using arguments from other atheists because most of them use the same ones. All arguments in philosophy are shared, So don"t feel bad. All of the arguments I used were developed by various Christian apologists and theologians. But you are quite right that a good philosopher should change his or her mind if they find an argument they can"t refute. I am glad that we both can follow the evidence where it leads, And obviously I believe that the evidence leads to God. Yeah you usually just don"t answer within a given timeframe in order to forfeit, But then the time clock will freeze and the debate won"t end for some reason. So fillers are the only way to end it unfortunately :/
God's existence

And I'd like to apologize for such a weak showing, My superior :P I'm still very much a newbie when it comes to debating God, So yeah. I initially intended on stealing arguments from other atheists, But that would be extremely disingenuous. Sometimes, You've just got to acknowledge that your opponent has a point, Instead of desperately trying to defend yourself. BTW - do we just put filler in the other rounds? There doesn't seem to be a forfeit button.
God's existence

Thank you for responding to my opening statement. Lets address your questions. 1. How do I know that the universe began to exist? In 1929 an astronomer called Edwin Hubble looked through his telescope and made a startling discovery about the universe. He observed that the universe is expanding at a very fast pace, Which could only mean that if the universe is expanding, It must have begun at a point a finite time ago. The Big Bang Theory gives good evidence that the universe is not past eternal, And is still the leading theory in cosmology today. Other theories like steady state theory, Bubble universe theory, Oscillating universe theory, And others describing a universe that is past eternal, Have all failed. In 2003, Three physicists Arvinde Borde, Alan Guth, And Alexander Vilenkin released a paper that described BGV theorem, Which is a principle that stated that no universe model with a cosmic expansion can be past eternal, But had an absolute beginning. What is remarkable is that this theorem even covers any multiverse or world ensemble theory. Even if a multiverse theory is proven, It must have an absolute beginning. 2. I am deeply sorry that I was so vague on this argument. You are quite right that any set of constants and quantities are unlikely, But what I am saying is that any chances of a universe constants and quantities that are able to support life anywhere in that universe are infinitesimally small. According to chance, What should have happened is that the universe would not be capable of supporting life at all. 3. I made a mistake on my wording for it in my opening statement. This was supposed to be the argument. 1. If God does not exist, Then objective moral values do not exist 2. Objective moral values exist 3. God exists Well everyone knows that objective moral values exist, We just don't call them that. If objective moral values didn't exist, Then we would be left to a socio-cultural relativism and no one could say that anyone has committed a moral atrocity. Here are some examples. Was the Nazi ethic wrong? If objective moral values exist, Then the Nazis were wrong for the industrial killing of Jews even though the Nazis thought it was good. Otherwise we could not truly say that they were wrong because there would not be any moral values or duties outside of human opinion. If they thought it was good, Then no one can say they were wrong. Would you say that the Catholic Church was wrong for sexually abusing little boys and the church trying to cover it up? Would you say the Hindu practice of burning alive widows on the stake of their dead husbands? If the answer to these is yes, Then Objective moral values exist because it means that these things were wrong despite any belief to the contrary that those things were good. Deep down we all know this to be true. Some things are truly wrong. These arguments defend my first assertion that there are good arguments that theism is true. Unless you have any arguments that atheism is true, Then my second assertion remains unchallenged. Back to you
God's existence

I will be defending two main assertions 1. There are good arguments that theism is true 2. There are no comparably good arguments that atheism is true I will be defending my first assertion in my opening statement and wait for my opponent to present his/her opening statement before proceeding to defend it. My first argument is the Cosmological Argument 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist 3. The universe has a cause by definition this cause must transcend space and time and must be personal because there are two things that transcend space and time 1. Abstract objects (like numbers) 2. An unembodied mind Since numbers can't cause things, We must conclude to an unembodied mind. My second argument is the Teleological Argument In the universe there are certain constants and quantities that are very specifically finely tuned for life in the universe. To give a few examples of this fine tuning: If the gravitational force was hypothetically stretched across the universe, If it were moved as little as one inch, Then no life on earth. If the strong force was off by less than a hair's breadth, Then no life on earth. These are just a few examples of this fine tuning. There are three main explanation for this fine tuning 1. Physical necessity 2. Chance 3. Design First, It can't be due to physically necessity, Because the constants and quantities lie outside the laws of nature. There are many scenarios where the universe can be not fine tuned for life. Second, It can't be due to chance, Because the chances are astronomically low that a finely tuned universe like ours could support life. Therefore we must attribute the fine tuning of the universe to design. My third and final argument for my opening statement is the Moral Argument 1. If God does not exist, Objective moral values exist 2. Objective moral values exist 3. God exists What I am not saying, Is "all atheists are bad". Secular people can follow moral law designated by a moral law giver, Without being familiar with the objectivity of the moral law or the existence of the moral law giver. What this argument is saying is that without God, Morality is not objective; there is nothing that can be designated objectively wrong (objective meaning regardless of human opinion). These are my opening three arguments for Theism and I will add more as needed. I thank my opponent Jade5600 for agreeing to do this debate with me. I await your reply.
Debates are meant to be won, not to reach truth

Debates are meant to reach truth. Let's start examining one of my sentences you quoted in the third round: "It only means that the winner's point of view was better defended with, of course, better arguments and reasons than the loser's point of view." It just simply does not prove your point of view, it only proves the accuracy of the winner of the debate. So watch out: the fact that a person has won a debate in this web page debate.org means that more people have agreed with him because they consider that his arguments are more reliable than the loser's ones. And as I also said, truth must help us to find the fair point in society where everyone is personally happy, so absolutely debates help us to find that point. And that point will be the point almost everyone agrees with. Now I will quote you in order to examine your argument: "As you can see, I'm not having a good conduct, yet that doesn't disprove any of my previous arguments, it just makes me look violent and/or irrational. Of course this doesn't lead to any truth." What do you understand by truth? You cannot dig in your heels by defining one only truth, as you did with that comment. Debates are meant to reach truth, and with truth I mean the point of the majority of people's agreement. If you reduce debates at the simply reason of wining, you would be probably better playing in a sport team instead of debating here. I will quote other sentence you said to examine it: " You can actually use reliable sources and still deform the correct information in them to make fallacies, especially informal fallacies like amphibology." You can of course use reliable sources for deforming them. For this reason, it has to be our duty to prove that source is false or not. By that way we could find if it was or not, so we can improve our knowledge. By that way, we find truth absolutely. I will give you an example: http://genesismission.4t.com... Here you have a web page that says dinosaurs are still alive, is that truth? Absolutely it is not. As you can see, I have not believed they are actually, so I have proved that the fact of lying does not mean you believe it. This argument also proves that it is not truth that I could believe some sources even if they are convincing, so I have disproved your point 5 too. And I still do not believe you when you say debates are meant to win, so as you can see it is not obligatory to believe anyone. It is only up to you. There is always a winner, but the question of the debate is: "are debates meant to win or to reach truth?" They are meant to reach truth, absolutely. Because at the end of the debate, we can prove if the winner's arguments were reliable or not. If they were, then we have won knowledge, if not too, because we have done the effort to disprove it.
Debates are meant to be won, not to reach truth

Let"s begin with the rebuttals. I will carefully examine your argument paragraph by paragraph. 1st paragraph: Basically the first paragraph defends my point of view. I quote now "it only means that the winner's point of view was better defended with, of course, better arguments and reasons than the loser's point of view." So it is not about finding truth, it is about defending a position that just might not be true, as Con just said and I quote again: "but it does not mean that the loser's point of view was incorrect". 2nd paragraph: I quote: "debates are meant to see the point of view of everyone so we can reach truth". Making such assumptions doesn"t make any valid point. In fact I doubt everyone"s point of view can be reduced to a simple (and extreme) dichotomy: Either completely yes or completely no. As Aristoteles said: "Virtue is a mean between two extremes" In these debates we completely ignore the possibility of Aristoteles being right ever, since there is no possibility in these debates to say "Well, it"s not a yes or a no, it"s something in between". Debates also ignore eclecticism. 3rd paragraph: Curiously Hitler got the power because he was voted, many people"s opinion were pro-Hitler even after being elected, just because of his convincing (and fallacious) way of talking, 4th paragraph: I quote: "If truth were something we could define perfectly, there won"t be any more debate". Perhaps it"s debate what"s making truth so hard to find, because we can"t just leave our beliefs aside and try to comprehend even further, because we are slaves of our unconscious mind in need for self-defense and also of cognitive biases. http://en.wikipedia.org... In this case, the belief bias: When one's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by their belief in the truth or falsity of the conclusion. Since the structure of the debate encourages you to defend a point and deny the other one, it is easy for anyone to be fooled by "Cognitive Dissonance". I explain this in another debate at debate.org Here you can check the link: http://www.debate.org... Now I proceed to quote again: "But we all have different opinions about everything in life, so we need to debate about them to ensure we all have the better situation we could have." Again, that"s why debates are flawed, because it is not about sharing opinions and synthesizing new ones. It"s about making them fight. Hitler"s opinion seems to have won once, did that make it any better or any more true? I suppose Con is defending relativism, but debates don"t make any sense in Relativism, not at least if the topics are so generic. And finally: No one is saying that you cannot express your opinion. You can do so in a debate and win, but that wouldn"t make your opinion any more than just what it is, an opinion. It may be true, but a debate doesn"t seem like the way to prove it"s true. I would suggest discussing the topic "Debates are meant to be won, not to reach truth" instead of whether or not people should express their opinions (Which they should).
Debates are meant to be won, not to reach truth

Debates are meant to reach truth, not to win. As you have said, debates in pages like this one are proposed to make people prove their point of view is correct. At the end of every debate there is a winner and a loser, but it does not mean that the loser's point of view was incorrect, it only means that the winner's point of view was better defended with, of course, better arguments and reasons than the loser's point of view. The way you see things in life could be (and I am sure it is) different to the way I see things in life. For this main reason, political systems are still changing, and they will never stop to change, just to ensure we can reach the most comfortable situation in the world, or simply in a city or town. Due to this fact, debates are meant to see the point of view of everyone so we can reach truth, or at least we can reach it the most we can. When people debate, there is a winner and a loser, as I said before. But both opinions are taken in consideration the same way a family takes all its members' points of view into consideration, just to ensure everyone rights. If we did not take into consideration everyone opinions, there will be always a part of society with no rights, and the way of living we would have, would be a dictatorship (a dictatorship of the left-wing or the right-wing). In brief: the fact that there is always a winner in a debate only means that the winner has defended his point of view with better arguments than the loser. If truth were something we could define perfectly, there won't be any more debate, because all of us would be winners, so we would not need them more. But we all have different opinions about everything in life, so we need to debate about them to ensure we all have the better situation we could have. Here you have your winner: http://www.biography.com... Honestly, I do not think he used to take into consideration other's opinions. I want to be listened, I would not like to be ignored.