BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conditional statements may be determined to be true whether or not the conditions are true.

(Since Mangani has declined to accept this challenge 3 times, even while boldly and falsely proclaiming that my YECS argument's major premise is not true, and I am currently advised that he is not accpeting challenges at this time, I am opening up the challenge to anyone who wants to offer a rebuttal to my claim.) Arguments are built with propositions. Propositions assert that something is the case or that something is not the case. A proposition may be affirmed or denied. Propositions are either true or false. I affirm the proposition offered for this debate and offer the following example of a conditional statement that can be determined to be true, given the stipulations, independent of whether or not any of the conditions reflected therein are, in fact, true and as a result of the logical connections between the hypothesized conditions, the antecedent, and the conclusion, the consequent. CONDITIONAL STATEMENT: IF (A); God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days, and IF (B); God's word (the text) is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and IF (C); there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years, THEN (D); the interpretation of the text by some is wrong. STIPULATIONS: "God's word" - communication from God in words that are not wrong. "Interpreted by some" - what some folks think it means and what thinking might be wrong. "Empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years" - some thing is much older than a few thousand years old and we can so determine from evidence and its interpretation independent of "the text". "Few thousand" - 100,000 or less. A conditional statement asserts that in case the antecedent is true, its consequent will be true also. A conditional statement does not assert that its antecedent, or any portion thereof, is true, but only that if its antecedent is true, then its consequent is true also. A conditional statement does not assert its consequent is true, but only that its consequent is true if its antecedent is true. To understand the meaning of a conditional statement one must understand what the relationship of implication is. The relationship may be logical, definitional, causal, or decisional; for example. The example above is, given the stipulations, an example of the logical relationship form of implication. That is, the consequent logically flows from the antecedent and the conditional statement can be determined to be true, logically, whether or not any of the conditions reflected therein are, in fact, true.
gay mariage

I read your argument about abortion and I completely agree. I thought that because of your standpoint on that issue you would be pro gay marriage also. I deliberately wanted to challenge you. now to the argument. as a christian i can understand why people would belive that "choosing to be gay" is "wrong". i personally do not believe. but that is an argument for some other time. if you do think homosexuality is wrong for religious beliefs, ok. but it clearly states in our constitutipon that church and state are to be separated. so it is not religious descrimination to make it legal for some one to do something that you think is wrong, religiously. this shouldnt be debatable.
gay mariage

I am personally for gay marriage as well so this one will be a chalange for me. I guess I will have to try and debate from the religious side, which will also be a chalange because I am Atheist as well, but I see no other side other then from a religious standpoint. I will provide my argument in the next and final round. Thank you for this chalanging opportunity. I will do some quick research and look foreword to your side of the argument.
The Evidence Points to Atheism

the cosmological argument from contingency the kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe the moral argument based upon objective moral values and duties the teleological argument from fine-tuning the ontological argument from the possibility of God’s existence to his actuality "These are, I believe, good arguments for God’s existence. That is to say, they are logically valid; their premises are true; and their premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their negations. Therefore, insofar as we are rational people, we should embrace their conclusions."-William Lane Craighttp://thegospelcoalition.org...I agree,Fritz
The Evidence Points to Atheism

Resolution: The Evidence Points to Atheism. BOP is shared Rules: No Forfeits No Fallacies No Insults 72 Hours to Post 8000 Characters Max 1 Week Voting Period Start your arguments in round 1 Structure: Round 1: Pre-debate info and Con's arguments Round 2: My arguments + rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Conclusion, no new arguments or rebuttals. Keep under 1000 characters.
The Evidence Points to Atheism

My Conclusion 1. "Con has yet to give a definition of God with primary attributes. Thus none of his arguments are meaningful. He doesn't back up his definition." Listen to me very closely, Jesus. Jesus IS Lord. He is perfectly Just and Righteous. and all the other things I listed in round 2. 2. "On my second argument, he says atheists exist, then says they don't. He doesn't even try to take on my argument." - Your argument begins "We will assume the background knowledge of God existing is 50/50" - I will not assume that, I am not interested in your ASSUMPTIONS. THIS ARGUMENT FAILS, IT IS AN ASSUMPTION. 3. "Con doesn't defend the first premise of the Kalam and doesn't back up his reasons for believing the cause is God." - Yes I DID back it up with the contemporary argument which states: An actual infinite cannot exist. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. http://en.wikipedia.org......... I also clearly provided proof that it was God: "Proof that the cause is God: The attributes of this cause must match the attributes in (A. Primary Attributes) as written above near the top of this page" So I DID defend the first premise of the Kalam AND backed up my reasons for believing the cause is God. 4. "Con ignores my objections to the moral argument, then confuses ethical causality with physical causality." - In the universe that you are defending ethical causality IS physical. or should I say fizz-ical. because you believe we are just fizzing chemicals, you fizz atheist and I fizz christian. YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY in your atheist universe because YOU HAVE NO FOUNDATION. 5. "Con ignores my request for a specific example of fine tuning and responses, then eventually drops it." Here you want an example? EVERYTHING IS FINE TUNED. you dropped ALL of my arguments. 6. "Con doesn't even try to address me on the ontological argument. In his last rebuttal round he basically forfeits." Ha! I didn't "forfeit" I just didn't feel as though I needed to present anymore evidence that atheism is CLEARLY not true. You can dance around in circles all you want but the stark reality of the matter is staring you right in the face. You were created by an all powerful, all knowing all loving creator who indowed you with near super natural abilities and gave you the complete freedom of choice. He is trying to shape you into a real Man but he can't if you keep resisting Him and being like a spoiled teenager who say's "I don't need my father, I don't need nobody, I'll take care of my self." well we all know that this BOY eventually grows up and becomes a MAN and reconciles with his father or his family or his friends or whatever. So stop living in sin and unholiness and repent and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ who will forgive you and wipe away your sins and transgressions against him and give you eternal life. amen.
The Evidence Points to Atheism

Conclusion Con has yet to give a definition of God with primary attributes. Thus none of his arguments are meaningful. He doesn't back up his definition. On my second argument, he says atheists exist, then says they don't. He doesn't even try to take on my argument. Con doesn't defend the first premise of the Kalam and doesn't back up his reasons for believing the cause is God. Con ignores my objections to the moral argument, then confuses ethical causality with physical causality. Con ignores my request for a specific example of fine tuning and responses, then eventually drops it. Con doesn't even try to address me on the ontological argument. In his last rebuttal round he basically forfeits. Let the voting begin!
The Evidence Points to Atheism

Argument 1: Non Cognitivism you want to know what God is? God is a mind. Argument 2: Argument from Reasonable non-belief. - Atheists do NOT exist. "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:20 Kalam my opponent must show that something, namely (the entire universe from molecules to men) came spontaneously from absolutely nothing (which is repulsive to logic and reason). Unless and until he does that, the Kalam cosmological argument remains sound. attributes: - "Until Con gives the attributes with reasons why they fit, the argument is irrelevant to the debate." - Reasons why they fit - we have a written history of God revealing these attributes over time. written by 60 authors (most who have never met) over thousands of years yet is an integrated message system that never contradicts. This is super natural evidence from outside time and space that affirms this premiss. Morality you said "The basis of ethics is causality:everything has consequences" but you said in round 2 "Physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause." which is it? Your augment is inconsistent. Atheisms is an inconsistent world view. You argue one thing but live the opposite. If you want to have a consistent world view that defines - meaning - morality - purpose try theism. If you want to keep living self contradictory and inconstantly then try to be atheist. However, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:20YOU ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE.
Cheetos are bad for you

I will refute my opponent's arguments now:"Its just a bag of cheetos and they aren't that bad for you"Where's the evidence to prove that they aren't bad for you?I'll give my opponent a few helpful debate tips:1: Post arguments in the second round2: Attack your opponent's arguments in the 3rd round.And then, believe me, you will rule the world! Vote pro. Good luck to con in the future.Also, nice song.http://www.youtube.com...;
Cheetos are bad for you

Thanks for accepting, opponent.Now look at this bag of Cheetos. Looks harmless, doesn't it? This bag contains numerous unhealthy fats and ingredients.First off, Cheetos contain 10 grams of total fat, artificial flavors, which are bad for your teeth, and yellow 6 which has allergic reactions, and has been shown to cause tumors in rats[1].Cheetos also contain:0% Vitamin A0% Vitamin C0% Calcium2% Iron[2]Therefore, Cheetos are bad for you.sources[1] http://cspinet.org...[2]
The Big Bang Theory

Rebuttals4)The universe contains the space. So the universe can be infinite while the space is finite. That's it. 6)I will proceed to explain the Cycle theory and the Multiverse theory , both give solution to this, while accepting the Big Bang. Cycle theory says that the universe is part of a cycle. the cycle starts with a Big Bang, then the expansion, then the expansion is so that the universe stars to get together again, then the big crunch, and we go back to the beginning. Multiverse theory says that there are many different universes at once. The collision off two of them creates the big bang and a new universe.7)Tesla's theory is based upon two pillars: (1) energy is just an ability of the matter, so matter can be transformed to energy and energy can't be transformed to matter. (2) there's no vacuum but a aether. Einstein disproved the energy thing with his studies in the energy-mass conversion, and the atomic bombs are the empirical prove that mass can be transformed into energy. Many experiments disproved the aether thing confirming there is a vacuum that has nothing.9) My grammar was alright in that sentence. I proved that "a universe that is fully formed from nothing is unrealistic". Read carefully next time. 10)Supernova radiation decays quickly. So all the microwave background cannot be supernovas exploding. 11)Is indeed evidence. Like if you see that all the streets are wet that's evidence of rain. Maybe someone threw some water in the streets, maybe it isn't rain. However wet streets are evidence of rain. The same with what I mentioned about the big bang.12)Not directly but yes with statistics. The same procedure we use to know what will people vote next election without asking everyone: statistics. Final conclusionsI gave 4 separate pieces of evidence in favour of the Big Bang. On the other hand, Con pointed out some "flaws" which were all explained and refuted. The resolution is confirmed.
The Big Bang Theory

1). I can prove it, but in another debate which I would be happy to settle with you. Challenge me to this debate and post the link to it in your next argument. 2). I just corrected your misconception, it has no further relevance to this debate. 3). you said that "energy came", I thought you were trying to say that this energy just came into existence. 4). you aren"t making any sense, please develop your points more clearly. 5). Thus you cannot say it was made that way, because then it would remain even if the mass was out of balance. Hence you must say that it was formed, but how? 6). I addressed this in point 5, the spec could NOT have always existed, otherwise it would stay in balance. It had to be formed, our universe is known to expand, but not to "crunch", quite the opposite. So how was this spec formed? 7). How did Einstein prove it wrong? Tesla"s Dynamic Theory of Gravity states that gravity is electromagnetism. This explains why we haven"t found any gravitons, and why if you de-magnetize something it is less heavy. I don"t know what mass being able to be converted into energy has to do with any of this. Except you backing my point that Einstein"s Relativity can be proven. 8). I told you, I can prove it, but in a separate argument, I thought I posted links to some proof, did I not? 9). you said "I can argument that a universe that is fully formed from nothing is unrealistic", so watch your grammar yourself. I can argue that it IS realistic, but to do this I will need to prove that G-d created the universe. However, this must be settled in another debate, which I would be happy to do with you. 10). Enable to prove this wrong you must give me a real calculation of how much radiation would exist in space given it all came from Super Novas. 11). something that you discover that does not disprove the Big Bang and could happen with it. Is not proof of the Big Bang, for this you need something that not only does not conflicts with the Big Bang, you need something that could not happen any other way. 12). you cannot measure all the bodies in the universe. I would be happy to resolve these issues in another debate with you; 1). is there a G-d? 2). Tesla"s Dynamic Theory of Gravity. I will challenge you to #1, for the audience, here is the link: http://www.debate.org... You"re going to have to challenge me to the Tesla"s Dynamic Theory of Gravity debate, I can only challenge you to 1 debate at a time.
The Big Bang Theory

1)You are conceding this point to me then. If you can't prove what you are saying, then don't say it.2)I wish you make the better decision for yourself. However you didn't refuted me. So another point you are conceding.3) First law of thermodynamics basically says that the change of energy of a closed system is the same as the work applied to it. Doesn't have anything to do with my statement.Energy isn't created but transformed from matter. That's how atomic bombs work.4)The space can be finite, but infinitely expandable, thus the universe must be infinite. The universe contains the space, so space can be finite and universe infinite.5)Instability. The singularity was very dense, thus very unstable. The instability caused the matter to transform into energy.6)This argument is based upon the assumption that things have to be formed by something. The spec could have not a genesis.However, an explanation to this could be the existence of other universes. In a multiverse, the collision or separation of universes gives origin to new universes. Also, quantum fluctuations prove that maybe the universe collides back to form a singularity and a new universe (Big Crunch). Multiverse model and Cyclic model both accepts the big bang and both are valid, well proved explanations of the nature of the universe.7)Nikola Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity has already been debunked by science. Einstein did it in his book "Ether and the Theory of Relativity". Michelson and Morley did the same with their experiment. The atomic bombs did the same too (mass can be converted to energy!). Tesla was a good engineer but a rather unsuccessful physicist.8)Again, if you don't prove what you say, don't say it because it has no value as an argument. 9) "Now we can see who has the biased" Watch out for grammar errors! I can't have the biased!I can argument that a universe that is fully formed from nothing is unrealistic. As far as I'm concerned, al things form gradually. Plants, humans, rocks, mountains, the earth, a TV, etc. Ergo, the Universe must have been formed in a gradual way.10)Yes, but not that much radiation.11)That we can see the expansion of the universe and al the other effects of the Big Bang. 12)If you know your physics, then you should know that the chemical composition of a star can be totally measured. The reflection and refraction of light depends not only on the crust but on the whole body, thus light spectrum describes the whole body.
The Big Bang Theory

1). Your entire argument against Rabbi Mizrachi"s argument lies around "there is no spirit", this is off topic, and should be saved for a different debate. 2). I am considering all the evidence, after I make a conclusion off of this, I will decide to remain Christian or convert to Judaism. 3). You say that energy didn"t exist before, how did it come into existence? This violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. 4). The universe is the objects that exist in space, if space is not infinite, the Universe CANNOT be infinite either. 5). What caused this mass to translate into energy that wasn"t there before? 6). I was asking you how the spec formed in the first place when all the mass therein repels itself and spreads out naturaly. 7). I was not being biased and subjective, it is true; we can prove Nikola Tesla"s Dynamic Theory of Gravity, we cannot prove Steven Hawkings theories, not one of them. 8). I can prove that G-d created the universe, but it is off subject and you are going to have to challenge me to a separate debate on it. 9). Now we can see who has the biased, you just are assuming that a universe that is fully formed from nothing is unrealistic, I will not go into it too much, I will save this for another debate, but if you want proof the Torah is divine, go here [1], [2]. 10). There would be radiation because of all these stars blowing up, super novas. 11). I know we see into the past this way, but how does that prove the Big Bang? 12). I know my physics, we can only see so far, and only on the surface of planets, not under the crust. [1]. http://www.divineinformation.com... [2].
On balance, Donald Trump's presidency is susceptible towards failure

First, I'm shocked the Pro would even bother to continue in the "debate" after completely embarrassing himself in his first error filled, delusional rant. But in keeping with his previous theme of delusion over reality, he offers us another barely coherent rant. Quote - As a small example, Pro clearly has no idea that the "Bush Tax Cuts" had nothing, whatsoever, to do with a Flat Tax. " Obama increased taxes on the rich. A tax rate for people who made above 500,000 dollars under the Bush administration was between 15-20%. It is now 35% thanks to Obama. How does stating Obama raised taxes in any way, refute the factually correct observation that Pro doesn't have a clue as to the meaning of the words - "Flat Tax"? Further, as always, his "facts" which probably gathers from posting forums, couldn't be more incorrect. To quote CNN (which couldn't be more biased) the top 1% are now paying an average tax rate that's 6 percentage points higher than when Obama first took office. http://money.cnn.com... Can Pro read? that's a 6% increase - not 100%+ increase. Further, Pro completely ignores the obvious dishonesty and hypocrisy of having complete control of the House, the Senate and The White House from 2008-2010 and NOT RAISING TAXES ON THE WEALTHY. Obama - "I didn't raise taxes once. I lowered taxes over the last two years," Obama said. http://www.politifact.com... Pro follows now concludes his error filled rant with something cut and pasted from another stalwart of biased left wing propaganda dissemination masquerading as journalism. Of course, no mention is made of Trump's successes, only the relatively few failures. At the end of the day, given the LOW estimate of Trump's wealth, at 3.7 Billion dollars and assuming he did not collect interest or any other form of income. He could throw $10,000 dollars a day - over the balcony of Trump Towers for 1000 years and not go broke. Yeah...that's some "failed" businessman.