BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The theory of evolution is false

Well firstly, there is not enough evidence to back up evolution. Secondly, if humans really have evolved from apes then why are apes still around? And also if evolution is the theory to explain how everything has evolved from something else, then the theory should also explain what the planets and the sun evolved from. And many people very rightly argue that humans have probably not lived long enough for 'evolution' to occur, as there is no evidence to suggest that humans have lived on this Earth from the start of time.
THB: God exists.

Proof by contradiction using omnipotence paradoxes:I will use mathematical proof via contradiction (source 1:3) to demonstrate that a God cannot exist. That is to say, I will assume the opposite is true (that God can exist) and demonstrate that this leads to a contradiction, and therefore it cannot be true.Omnipotence is inconsistent with itself as it produces paradoxes. For instance, can God create a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it? If not, he is not omnipotent (as he is unable to create such a rock) and if so, he is also not omnipotent (as he cannot lift such a rock).Another example of this is the inconsistence between omniscience and omnipotence- can God learn something? If can, he is not omniscient (as if he can learn something, there is something he does not know- the thing he would learn) and if not, he is not omnipotent (as there is something he cannot do- experience learning).Similar paradoxes result from asking "Can God go somewhere he hasn't been?" (demonstrates the inconsistence between omnipotence and omnipresence) and "Can God do something evil?" (demonstrates the inconsistency between omnipotence and omnibenevolence).See source 4 for more.The problem of evil:This was first introduced by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, and was phrased as follows:"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing?Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing?Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing?Then why call him God?"Essentially, bad things cannot happen in a world created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, because he would know about evil, would be able to stop it, and would want to stop it, and yet such evil still exists.Theists often respond to this by saying that evil is a result of mankind's free will, but then God, if omnipotent, could have created a world with free will but without evil, and if omnibenevolent, would have wanted to, so this refutation does not stand.(See source 6).So, in summary:1) God cannot exist, as ominpotence is inconsistent with itself and the other aspects of omnimaximality.2) Evil could not exist in a universe associated with an omnimaximal being, but evil does exist. Hence, God does not exist.Sources:[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]: [3]: http://mathworld.wolfram.com...[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org...[5]: http://rebirthofreason.com...[6]: https://aintnogod.com...
THB: God exists.

NB: I will OPPOSE this motion. The motion is: "THB: God exists". Definitions:"THB": abbreviation for "This house believes"- essentially, the claim being discussed. "God": an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, conscious creator of the universe. "Exists": can be known to be part of reality. Format: Pro may choose to take either the first or the last word: If they choose to argue first, they should provide their first argument in R1, and must not provide any arguments in R4 (but due to the way DDO works, they must say something, so "Thank you for the debate" or "Vote Pro" are fine) and voters should ignore any arguments they provide in R4- giving me the last word of debate. Otherwise, they must only accept the argument in R1- giving me the first word, and them the last word. In this case, they may provide arguments in R4.
THB: God exists.

My opponent has pointed out the problem of evil stated by Epicurus, and makes several good points, but it is all answered by two words. God is both willing and able to stop evil, but chooses to let it stay because of FREE WILL. He created us with free will to make our own decisions, but we choose to do wrong. God did not create evil, but he did create a world in which it was not known. But Lucifer, also known as Satan, choose to reject God, and thus evil eventually entered the world.As for the no evidence of a multiverse, let me ask you this. Has anyone seen an alternate dimension with their own eyes? Of course not. So, if I am an atheist who doesn't believe anything I cannot see, what sense is there in believing in a multiverse? Or a cyclical universe, for that matter? The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases, and never decreases. Now, the level of entropy at the time of the Big Bang was at it's low (let's say t stands for entropy), and t=0. Therefore, a cyclical cannot exist, and the amx level of entropy would have to revert back to 0.As for the unified field theory, it is a good theory, but still suffers a flaw. How would these fundamental forces come into place? They would still need to exist in order to be interconnected. Omnipotence: My opponent states that nothing can do the logically impossible, then God cannot exist. But, Descrates states that he believed God could do the logically impossible, thus breaking the laws of physics and logic. Aquinas, on the other hand, NEVER stated that God CANNOT CHOOSE to do the logically impossible. He stated that he believed God CHOOSE NOT TO break the laws he put in place. Let's say that I have a loaded gun against someones head, and they can do nothing to stop me. I have the power to pull the trigger, but I can choose not to.Omniscience: Con seems to have misunderstood my argument here, and I admit I may have misworded it, so let me let William Lane Craig answer it. Kevin Harris: Some people may be thinking that you're saying that God didn't know that Columbus, for sure, would discover America and he came to know that when he goes, “Oh, look!” Dr. Craig: No, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that before the event God knew the future tensed proposition “Columbus will discover America” but he didn't know the proposition “Columbus discovered America” because that was false at that time. That was false at that time. So that proposition switches truth value once Columbus has made his discovery—it goes from being false to being true, and since God is omniscient (and omniscient means knowing and believing only and all truths) God must come to believe that proposition now. And he will no longer believe the proposition “Columbus will discover America” because that proposition has now become false. It used to be true but it isn't any longer, so God won't believe it anymore. Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...;I hope that this is sufficeint evidence. If Pro would like, we could debate this again with longer response times so we can both prepare more through arguments. Thank you.
THB: God exists.

As it is now the final round, readers should ask themselves this: has Pro met the burden of proof required to convincingly demonstrate that a God exists? As outlined in R1, no new arguments may be introduced (though new rebuttal and rephrasing of previous arguments may be done), and so this is it- would you, had you only ever read this conversation on the topic, now be convinced of the likelihood of God's existence? If not (and I feel you ought not to be), then it is imperative that you vote Con.Omnipotence paradox- Descartes:Descartes simply highlights the paradox here- that if God exists, his omnipotence necessitates that he can do the logically impossible. However, nothing can do the logically impossible (e.g. nothing can make 1 + 1 = 3) as this produces paradoxical results, and so this simply shows that God cannot exist.Omnipotence paradox- Aquinas:If God cannot choose to violate the laws of physics, mathematics, and even logic, he is not omnipotent, and therefore is not God. Omnipotence-omniscience paradox:Pro states: "When Columbus eventually did, God gained knowledge that Columbus DID discover America.". If that is true, God there was a point in time in which God did not know whether Columbus would discover America- hence, he was not omniscient as there was a thing that could concievably be known which he did not know.Summary:So, to summarise my case:1) Omnimaximality is internally inconsistent, and so God cannot exist- Descartes does not ressolve this, and Aquinas dodges the question by talking about some entity which is clearly not omnimaximal.2) Evil would not exist in a universe with an omnimaximal being, and so God does not exist as evil does- Pro has not yet responded to this.3) Multiverse and cyclical universe hypotheses make the apparent fine-tuning of the universe very unremarkable, as there are so many universes (or incarnations of the same one) that the fact that one (or more) is hospitable to life is inevitable.4) Unified field theories blow fine-tuning out of the water- the constants are inherently related, so that they converge is inevitable.I feel I have been thorough enough to rest my case for this debate- Pro has failed to convincingly demonstrate that a God does exist, and has also failed to convincingly answer my argument that omnimaximality cannot exist, or my argument that God cannot exist in a wolrd which has evil.
THB: God exists.

My opponent has used an old, but effective argument against Christians, "can God create a rock so heavy not even he can lift?" If he can, that means there is something he can"t do, which is to lift the rock. If he can"t, that means there is something he can"t do, which is to create the rock. It is a valid point, but St. Thomas Aquinas and Ren" Descartes both answer this same question, though they have different answers. Descartes believed that God, being omnipotent, could do the logically impossible, such as make 1+1=3. Aquinas, on the other hand, believed God could do anything REASONABLLY possible, such as part the Red Sea, or walk on water, but would not violate the laws of physics and mathematics he put in place. While Aquinas" theory is the most plausible, both still survive the paradox. According to Descartes, God CAN create a rock so heavy he can"t lift, AND STILL LIFT IT. Of course, it is contradictory, but God would be able to make such contradictions true. According to Aquinas, God is a being that can lift all stones, so therefore a stone so heavy he cannot lift is an impossible object and unable to be created, just as it is impossible to make 1+1=3. He cannot go against his own nature, just like God cannot lie. "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the centre to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." [1] My opponent also asked if God can learn. If he can, then he is not omniscient. If he can"t, then he is not omnipotent. Knowledge can be described in three parts: past, present, and future knowledge. For an example, God had knowledge that in 1492, Columbus would seek to find the New World. Now, in the year 100 AD, Columbus would not have even been born, so therefore God would have had future knowledge that Columbus would discover America. When Columbus eventually did, God gained knowledge that Columbus DID discover America. 300 years after the fact, God would have past knowledge the Columbus discovered America. I was running short on time while writing this, so I will answer the rest of my opponent"s arguments in the final round. [1] "Cum principia quarundam scientiarum, ut logicae, geometriae et arithmeticae, sumantur ex solis principiis formalibus rerum, ex quibus essentia rei dependet, sequitur quod contraria horum principiorum Deus facere non possit: sicut quod genus non sit praedicabile de specie; vel quod lineae ductae a centro ad circumferentiam non sint aequales; aut quod triangulus rectilineus non habeat tres angulos aequales duobus rectis". Aquinas, T."Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 2, Section 25. trans. Edward Buckner
The square of any even integer is always even

NOTE TO VOTERSI will most likely not use sources because the arguments that I will most likely use do not require sources, for this reason unless both me and my opponent use sources do not give the mark for the most reliable sources to either of us.Definitions:The square- The product of an integer multiplied by itselfAn even integer- A number that when divided by 2 produces an integerMy opening argument:An even integer can be represented as 2x where x is an integer (2x)^2 = 4x^2(4x^2)/2 = 2x^22x^2 is an integer because any integer multiplied by itself produces an integer and 2 multiplied by any integer is always an integer.
Mike Trout is better than Miguel Cabrera

"There is no further proof needed as to Cabrera's dominance."That is false. MVP means "Most Valuable Player" not "Most Best Player." Miggy was more valuable than Mike Trout because his team made the postseason. Multiple writers on Bleacher Report state that Trout had the superior season. "Trout once again led the league in wins above replacement (WAR) by a healthy amount, while his defense ranked as the 21st-most valuable in the AL [1]." I have already said everything that proves that Mike Trout is the better player. Please note that I predict my oppenent to use "Valuable is better." That is not completley true.Therefore, I wrap up the debate.PLEASE VOTE MIKE TROUT AS BEST PLAYER!!! THANK YOU!!![1] http://bleacherreport.com...
Mike Trout is better than Miguel Cabrera

I am writing this now that Miguel Cabrera has won the MVP award. Surely, you cannot argue with a pannel of acclaimed people who discuss Baseball for a living? By utilizing statistics that fail to capture the intangibles, you have failed to recognize that the Baseball Writer's Association of America have voted for Miguel Cabrera over Mike Trout. There is no further proof needed as to Cabrera's dominance.
Mike Trout is better than Miguel Cabrera

My opponent seems to be relying heavily on advanced statistical measurements of a player's qualities that are so specific they are borderline meaningless. On top of this, these advanced statistics do not mean more than "the big three," which are, of course, Home Runs, Runs Batted In, and Batting Average, all of which Miguel Cabrera led the league in in 2012, in addition to beating Mike Trout in 2013. Miguel Cabrera is, hands-down, a better batter than Mike Trout. If my opponent has the audacity to argue this point, then he is truly not knowledgable about this topic to be a trustworthy source when judging a debate. I would like to make another point: Baseball is a spectator sport. It is a sport where the fans and the people who bring the information to the fans decide who is best. And if last year's MVP voting was any indication of what these people, those whose opinions matter, those who purchase tickets that allow teams to sign and retain players such as the two in question, believe makes a good baseball player, then Miguel Cabrera is better. Should my opponent make the argument that last year's MVP voting (which has yet to happen) and this year's are inherently not the same because of the 365 days that separate them, I will simply bring up the following point: Max Scherzer, who is a teammate of Cabrera, won the Cy Young award, beating out Yu Darvish and Hishashi Iwakuma, who possessed an advantage over Scherzer in advanced statistical categories, with the main tool in his arsenal being his Win-Loss Record. The WL Record is among the most outdated stats in sports, yet the aforementioned "people whose opinions matter" still preferred Scherzer. This is proof that advanced statistical analysis does not automatically decide who is a better player. Therefore, my opponent's contentions which rely on Mike Trout's sabermetrical statistics are nullified.
Mike Trout is better than Miguel Cabrera

You stated a ton of these facts- yet you have no sources for them. Dare I say they may not be true? No, I don't. But they may be unreliable, as many people do not like Mike Trout, plus some sources vary than others. "Thus giving Miguel Cabrera the edge in defense." Mike Trout has a 3.3 DEF [1] in 2013, and a 13 DEF in 2012. However, Miguel Cabrera has a terrible -6.9 DEF [2] in 2013, and a mortifying -14.8 DEF in 2012. For comparison, Paul Konerko had a -7.6 in 2013 and a -15.1 in 2012. Cabrera is about the same as Paul Konerko while Trout is the same as Andrew McCutchen (Gold Glove winner, 3.3 in 2013.) Trout's numbers may be down, but worse than Cabrera's? Nope. Trout has also made many more highlight reel plays than Miguel Cabrera, including robbing home runs, which is taking runs off of the scoreboard. Miggy makes the above-average catch once in a while, but I don't think he can make the spectacular plays that Mike Trout has the ability to do. "Base running is the least important tool." No, it is not. Arm Strength is. Base running gives you the ability to get an extra base and put you into scoring position, which is very imortant to score runs. It is also important to runs created. You can stretch doubles into triples. Say it's one out. A medium-depth fly out on a double means man on second, two out. But a medium-depth fly ball with a runner means a run. To back this up, let's take a look at some fangraphs statistics. Mike Trout: 12.2 BsR over two seasons ('12 and '13.) BsR is base running runs above average (SB and CS) Miguel Cabrera: -6.6 BsR over two seasons ('12 and '13.) Trout made 18.8 more runs than Cabrera stealing bases ALONE. Lets take a look at OFF (offense based on hitting and stealing.) There, FANGRAPHS says that baserunning is part of offense. Mike Trout: 53.2 OFF in 2013, 69.6 in 2012. Miguel Cabrera: 50.6 OFF in 2013, 63.5 in 2012. Therefore, Mike Trout seems to be better in both offense and defense. Also, Trout has a higher WAR over two seasons (18.5) than Cabrera (14.7.) That's about FOUR more wins for Mike Trout and the Angels. Therefore, Mike Trout is better than Miguel Cabrera. *Stats based on http://www.fangraphs.com... *Stats based on http://www.fangraphs.com...
Mike Trout is better than Miguel Cabrera

My opponent makes an erroneous argument that Mike Trout is a better player than Miguel Cabrera. He states that Cabrera possesses two of the five scouting tools of baseball, but Trout is the proud owner of all 5. This is false. Cabrera has an arm that is strong enough for his position by a fairly wide margin, whereas Trout has an arm that is mediocre at best. In addition, I will prove that Trout's fielding was actually worse than that of Cabrera. This gives Cabrera the tools of the Throwing Arm, Batting Average, and Power. Trout has these same skillsets, with the partial subtraction of Throwing Arm, and the addition of Baserunning, the latter of which I will prove is a tool that is relatively unimportant. I will cede the point that Mike Trout has far greater tools in the sectors of baserunning and fielding, though I will continue to affirm the fact that baserunning is the least important tool and fielding can be made up for by good hitting, wherein Cabrera has the advantage. According to reputable source, baseballanalysts.com, stolen bases, the quintessential statistic to measure baserunning, are only not detrimental to the team for whom the baserunner plays for should the player in question steal bases at a 75% success rate or better. Trout steals bases at a measly 13% better than this 75% rate, meaning that the contributions to his team concerning his baserunning are fairly narrow. As for fielding, Cabrera, according to baseball-reference.com, cost his team 18 more runs than the average fielder over 1200 innings in 2013 alone. Trout's fielding cost his team, on average across the three positions he played in 2013, a whopping 29.75 runs more than the average fielder would have per 1200 innings. This gives Cabrera the clear advantage in fielding, though I will be merciful to my opponent and not include this in the aforementioned skillsets that he posesses. Therefore, my opponent's argument concerning the tools that the two players in question posses is nullified. My opponent further goes on to state, "Mike Trout can be pitched around, but Miguel Cabrera can't." Cabrera walks, according to baseball-reference.com, 13% of the time. Trout walks at a rate only 2% greater. If Trout's statistics are as diluted by his walk numbers as my opponent claims, can't the same claim be made about Miguel Cabrera, thereby neutralizing the argument? After all, a 2% difference could easily be a fluke. Therefore, two of my opponent's most strong contentions are eliminated and one of mine still stands, uncontested, and my other contention still stands, contested only by my opponent's nonsense phrase, "Mike Trout is more injury consistent than Miguel Cabrera." Therefore, I negate.
Mike Trout is better than Miguel Cabrera

I negate the proposition, "Mike Trout is better than Miguel Cabrera." Part of what makes a good baseball player is a player who can change the game with one swing of the bat. Of course, this is not the totality of baseball greatness, though it is a sizable part. Home runs are the cardinal way of changing a game with one swing of a bat. Throughout his career, Miguel Cabrera has consistently posted home run numbers that dwarf those of Mike Trout. According to reputable source, baseball-reference.com, Mike Trout's 162 game average for home runs is 30. Miguel Cabrera, on the other hand, has, throughout his career (which is far more lengthy than that of Mike Trout) posted 36 home runs per season. Another part of what makes a good baseball player is consistency. I define consistency as "having the physical and mental resilience to stay on the field, as well as having the skill, talent, and implementation of the preceding two attributes to garner regular playing time." These two things can be measured in games played. The higher the number of games played, the more reliable For his career, Miguel Cabrera has played in an average of 151 games per season, including his first season in the major leagues which was not even a complete stint. Trout, on the other hand, has played in an average of 148 games per season in his career. These numbers are less than those of Cabrera, and I was kind enough to give Mike Trout an advantage of not counting his first season, which, like that of Cabrera, was incomplete. I did not give this advantage to Cabrera when calculating his average amount of games played per season, yet he still was able to come out on top in this category. Should I refrain from such unfair advantages, Trout, as opposed to losing to Cabrera in this category by three games, would lose by a whopping 39 games. Therefore, this point is proven.