BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High probability of God or Gods existence

I would first like to say that flatland theory is a great concept but falls apart in every application. Whether you are drawing on a piece of paper or coloring it none of it is 2-d. Our entire universe is made up of 3 dimensions even a line on a piece of paper has length width and height even though it is minute. Just like years ago we believed that everything was made up of atoms then we realized that there is a more basic building block(electrons, protons, neutrons), we then saw electrons and the rest as the smallest building blocks we were wrong again because we now know electrons and the like are made up of quarks. Even though I doubt this is the smallest building block. So since it is impossible for us to not only interact with a 2-d universe but we have no evidence that it would even exist. Therefore there is no logic to suggest that even if God was in a "4-d" universe there would be no 3-d objects ,nothing in that universe could be 3-d.Just like we have no 2-d objects in our 3 or 4 dimensional universe( though it is argued that we could have anywhere from 3 to 32 dimensions in our universe) Secondly, I agree a being or anything outside the realm of both space and time could do anything inside that realm but once inside the realm of space and time(our realm of existence) the laws must be followed. Therefore even if God was in a realm outside of space and time anything inside the realm space and time must follow the laws of space and time. For example the law that matter cannot be created or destroyed must be followed therefore it would be impossible for him to create matter in our universe without breaking the laws of our universe. Thirdly my opponent states "Therefore, a cycle of movements is a foundation, since it relies on a consistent basis of mobility the earth is fixed and immovable in relation to its orbit around the sun. Have you ever known the earth to "unfix" itself and "move" itself out of its orbit around the sun? It doesn't happen, because the earth is fixed and immovable in relation to its orbit around the sun." As we know with objects orbiting the earth once they do not have sufficient speed to stay in orbit they will fall to the earth due to gravity. The earth orbiting the sun is the same eventually the earth will fall out of orbit and either be shot into space away from the sun or loose too much speed and fall into the sun. One could actually claim the the earth is constantly being pulled into the sun.( there has been some scientific research suggesting that an a massive body outside our solar system is actually pulling us towards it.)
High probability of God or Gods existence

To start I must say what a great argument. Well thought, logical, and self supporting. 1.My opponent stated stated "1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. 2. The universe"the collection of matter in space and time"exists. 3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. 4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. 5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time." While this is a well thought argument it does a very good job of contradicting itself. 1. if something exists,there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. If this is to be true then even if something exists outside of space and time must have something that is what it takes for it to exists. for example even if God is outside the realm of space and time God still requires something to exist in order for him to exist. In order for God to exist there must be some where that is outside of space and time. then for there to be an area that is outside of space and time, there once again must be something to provide it. This is like the difference between 1/3rd and .3333 repeating. 1/3rd is a finite amount where .333 repeating while equivalent to 1/3 never ends. In the last argument I stated that in order for a god to exist there would have to be a realm outside of space and time. This brings me to the next point. If there is a realm outside of space and time matter could just spontaneously spawn from it nothing could=something 0=any number because of this the need for a specific being to create something is mute. The main problem with my opponents theory is that 1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. cannot be true if a God created himself. Because that would mean in order for God to exists God must exist.(also if this is true God exists because God exists then the same principle can be applied to matter and spacetime) Also if God does exist outside the realm of space and time there would be no way for him to interact with the realm of space and time. Once he created the realm of space and time he would be outside it. If he is outside the realm of space and time once created he could not create matter there because once in the realm of space and time matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Outside the realm of space and time no laws of physics exist but once inside the realm of space and time the laws apply.
High probability of God or Gods existence

Since I did not request scientific data. Also since we are arguing the Christian god I will refer to the bible in some occasions. I will first start with logical inconsistency. A. "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."-john 1:3 This is extremely inconsistent. If all things were made through him (God) then God must have made himself. Therefore you could conclude before God there was nothing, absolute nothing. Therefore if nothing existed before god yet god had to have made himself. That is inconsistent with arithmetic 0=0 or nothing=nothing. 0 will never equal 1. Nothing will never be something. B. if without him not anything that made that was made. Then something like plastic which does not exist before man or in nature must have also been made by him. Yet we all agree that it was made by man. 2. If the bible is the word of god and he is omnipotent then it would be logical to conclude that none of the instances in the bible should be false or contradict one another. if God is omnipotent then mistakes would not exist. There fore if mistakes or contradictions do exist, the bible is not the word of God, but the word of men. This would mean the first quote I stated( "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."-john 1:3) is false for the bible was made by man not god. "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)" now since we have videos of the earth rotation and we can reasonably agree that the earth is orbiting around the sun. This is clearly false if you take it in the literal sense. "that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)" "He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. (From the NIV Bible, Job 37:3)" "for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (From the NIV Bible, Job 28:24)" "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)" these all state that the earth is flat and some state the earth has edges(not circular) while the last quote states that the earth is circular but still flat. I will conclude there to give my opponent plenty of Characters to both produce a counter argument of my points and to make points towards his own goal of a high probability of Gods existent.
High probability of God or Gods existence

I accept. Primarily, I will argue that God"s existence falls on the "high probability"-end of modal logic. Although my faith and theological perspective defines the existence of a Divine Creator as a necessary truth, I will not revert to this concept through out my argument, and I will define the debate such that it regards the existence of God as a contingency. I also will ask Con if he will allow me to present the points presented by my own particular religion (Christianity) when I feel it necessary during some point in the debate. Amen brah.
High probability of God or Gods existence

As con I shall be against a high probability of God or Gods existence. As pro(my opponent) will be for a high probability of God or Gods existence. ( no particular God or Gods must be argued, though my knowledge of religion is very limited outside of Christianity and Greek Mythology) I will not ask for scientific data for the existence of God or gods, but I do ask that you use reasonable logic and/or math. (Though if you do have scientific data it is accepted) reasonable- 1(of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible. 2. as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate. Logic-reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. *Please no trolls, rudeness, or personal attacks. First argument will just be acceptance of debate.
Abortion

I am gonna go back to Murder part because you weren't clear on that so the definition of Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Now Abortion isn't illegal BUT hear me out, abortion is the killing of a human being by another human being. (the baby is sucked out (the doctor is doing that with a tool) and then thrown into a trash can) therefore by definition abortion is legal but still murder. Another thing is whats the difference between the fetus getting nutrition from the mother inside versus the baby getting milk from his/her mother's breast. Now I know not all babies get milk from their mothers breast and/or another women, but there is no difference, so then why is it mortal for a baby to take milk form a women's breast. Going on from the Rape stand of point. Yes the mother wasn't responsible or irresponsible, because she was raped, but it is still considered her child whether or not the father of the child is with her. And yes she may not be ready to carry the baby in her stomach for the 9 months and go through all of that, but don't you agree it is selfish to take away someone's life just to not be pregnant for 9 months? Around the the 10th week of your pregnancy your baby becomes a fetus, meaning its been developing ever since it was transferred from a guy to a girl. Your stopping the possibility of life of your child. That goes along with the selfishness of abortion. By the 10th week of pregnancy, your baby probably measures more than 1 inch, or roughly the length of a quarter. By the end of the 1st trimester, your baby will grow to be about 3 inches " around the length of a kiwi fruit. This measurement doesn't even take into account arms and legs. That's because in the 1st trimester, your baby is measured from the top of the head to the bottom of the rump. By the beginning of the 10th week of pregnancy, all of your baby's vital organs have formed. His embryonic tail, located at the bottom of his spinal cord, has disappeared. His bones continue to develop. On an ultrasound, your baby's bones appear white. At 10 weeks pregnant, his ears get close to their final form. His teeth buds emerge, and his eyelids develop further. His testes start producing the male hormone testosterone around the 10th week of pregnancy. Tiny fingers and toes are fully separated (no more webbing). Plus, your baby's brain growth really takes off. Every minute, 250,000 new neurons (or first brain cells) are produced This proves right there it is a baby not just a fetus but a human being, and it's only the first trimester of your pregnancy. Now Your response in the first round You said: a fetus to be the same as a baby for the difference is a ball of cells vs working organs. 10th week- fingers start to grow along with bones, eyelids, no more webbing 11th week -The blood vessels in your placenta grow larger to prepare for this time of accelerated growth in your baby. this proves they baby/fetus isn't just a ball of cells, there's arms, legs, organs developing along with body formations developing.
Abortion

(3 rounds in 72 hours) Abortion is Murder no matter what people say. As soon as the baby is created it is has a soul. People say a baby is not a baby until it is born; as in breathing air, eating food, and can see the world. People say it is the women's choice whether or not to abort. People can say things but that doesn't mean its true. A baby or if you want to call it a fetus is feeding off of you but that doesn't mean it is part of you. You shouldn't have the choice to murder you child or not. You aren't giving her/him a chance to live. If you can't seriously take care of your baby, put it up for adoption, don't kill him/her because you were irresponsible and became pregnant when you didn't want to/or couldn't take care of her/him.
This House Would Make Voting Compulsory

Excellent I'm glad this debate can continue! Since we're not discussing my alternative to the democratic system discussed I will focus round 3 on rebutting the statements promoting compulsory voting. My Rebuttals "In compulsory voting, the people would be more politically involved" This is simply not the case, the public isn't suddenly going to get more involved in politics just because voting has become a legal sanction. The public doesn't really know where their tax money goes but they pay the government anyway because it's a legal sanction the same can go for voting. A person may not know what the candidates stand for but they'll vote anyway because they legally have to. "Nobody is going to vote for someone named Bob Johnson if he stands for eradicating puppies and kittens, even if he has access to all the commercials and media" This is a flawed statement as candidates will often lie in order to win their elections and the media will just make it easier for them. The public generally depends on T. V. to get political information more so than anywhere else, you can't just expect people to look into every candidate running for office and then just vote for them. Not to mention some people are just fundamentally opposed to all politicians (myself included) so that will also be a problem in a system of compulsory voting. Compulsory voting simply will not change how people will be willing to gain information about candidates. In what possible way can violating a person's autonomous right not to vote have an affect on people being politically involved. "In a two party system, such as that of the United States" The U. S is a perfect example about how my previous statements are accurate. The U. S is not technically a two party system but the public only votes on two major parties because the media limits their coverage on those two political parties, this problem will not change with compulsory voting. "Also, what you said about them being funded by a lot of large corporations, what is bad with that? " These corporations are the special interests of the candidates, because they are funded by them they are more interested in doing their bidding than that of the working class or significantly smaller businesses with much less money. This is exactly why Capitalism is a major part of the problem, the structured inequity of it perpetuates the corruption that occurs within the state. "Not having compulsory voting won't fix this" A part of the solution to ending the status quo is to eliminate the business government power elite that inevitably comes from Capitalism and the state as well, and once you get rid of the state voting all together will become obsolete!
This House Would Make Voting Compulsory

That's alright :) Round three will just be rebuttals and answering rebuttals, sorry if there was a miscommunication on my part. I urge the judges to dismiss what I said about breaking conduct will result in a 7-point loss, since there was a miscommunication on the structure of the debate, I ask you vote on the cases as they stand. Welcome to the site as well! (Just a formatting tip, con, you can get formatting by pressing on "rich text" on the top left part of the box where you type in your arguments! Pretty nifty)-----REBUTTALS:"In many cases the success of political candidates depend on the amount of money that they're campaign has as they will gain media attention, access to primary debates, and thus the attention of average voters"In compulsory voting, the people would be more politically involved, and thus vote more for the people that fit their own ideologies. Nobody is going to vote for someone named Bob Johnson if he stands for eradicating puppies and baby kittens, even if he has access to all of the commercials and media, because people will stand by people that support their own views, and would research into people that support their own views."Another problem is these candidates are funded by a lot of large corporations, too many for everyone to know the business practices of each and everyone of the corporations."In a two-party system, such as that of the United States, this is not a big problem. People do not have to look into 500 different candidates, instead they only have to look into 2 major candidates, and then a few small-party ones that reinforce their own ideologies. Also, what you said about them being funded by a lot of large corporations, what is bad with that? If there is a giant corporation named "Puppy-Killers, LLC.", and they have the slogan "We like to support candidates that support the eradication of puppies", who is to say that they cannot support them on a monetary level? The corporation supports the views of Bob Johnson, so they should have the right to put money into his cause. (I just used these examples as a joke, but change the names and slogans to something to the effect of "Democrats 4 Peace" and "we love peace and we like to vote for those that achieve peace/strive to achieve peace"). "The continuation of Capitalism or the state regardless will continue the status quo that comes with it."Not having compulsory voting won't fix this, so you are not fulfilling your BoP to say that we should not make voting compulsory."[second paragraph of constructive case]"That's an interesting idea that you have, and I'd really like to have a debate about that kind of government when this debate is over, but that does not really fit the resolution at hand, and thus we cannot say that you are fulfilling your BoP to say that we should not enact voting compulsiority.-----Thanks to my opponent for not allowing himself to just forfeit, instead make a case when he did not know if it was allowed, I admire that.
This House Would Make Voting Compulsory

I apologize for misunderstanding the structure of the debate (my first debate on this site) however I would still like to make a case if that's okay with you. My Constructive Case Compulsory voting is not the right solution to the problem of politicians focussed on special interests. In many cases the success of political candidates depend on the amount of money that they're campaign has as they will gain media attention, access to primary debates, and thus the attention of average voters because they don't have perfect information this will not prevent the business elites from getting their way and continuing the status quo. Another problem is these candidates are funded by a lot of large corporations, too many for everyone to know the business practices of each and everyone of the corporations. The continuation of Capitalism or the state regardless will continue the status quo that comes with it. My solution to the business government power elite interfering with Democracy is a more realistic system that will more accurately represent the will of the masses and that is Direct Consensus Democracy. Suppose a group of people are voting on a proposal; 51% are in favour and 49% are opposed, unlike mob rule the 49% would not be forced the comply with the 51% instead the 49% would be free to explain why they object to the proposal. If they disagree but are willing to let the proposal go into action then they can can stand aside and let it pass, or if they want to reach a consensus more quickly they can modify the proposal and see if that works, but if they're totally unhappy with it they can block the proposal and suggest something completely different. There are numerous reasons why this model of consensus decision making is clearly preferable to Representative Democracy. #1. Again as I said earlier it's a more accurate reflection of the public will. This is because in Direct Consensus Democracy you represent your own views yourself. #2. It fosters critical thinking. Because the goal is to create as large a consensus as possible there's always going to be room for improvement, it runs on dissent! #3. It fosters solidarity. Through a constant process of looking for more and more common ground it unifies people and strengthens their solidarity. When practiced on a large scale this would reduce anti-social behaviour by some margin. #4. It's the default way for humans to interact with one another. If you go out with a group of friends you'll make decisions as a group discussing and evaluating the possibilities until you arrive at something that everybody's happy with. Consensus decision making is something we are all naturally accustomed to do because it makes for healthy relationships between people. #5. People are actually free in this system! It's the freedom to pursue your own creative needs and desires alongside your fellow human beings.
This House Would Make Voting Compulsory

"There are going to be three rounds and they are going to be as follows, failure to follow these rounds (unless amended in the round) will result in a full seven point forfeiture:constructive cases (no rebuttals but you can make pints that you expect to hear from the opponent)rebuttals/new pointsanswers to rebuttals/answering new points/telling judges why they win/crystalization of points/no new points"my opponent has broken structure and thus forfeits the debate. I was actually looking forward to this debate :/
The Federal Reserve

#1- Congress was never given the power to establish a central bank or print more money.{1} #2- Just because we'll all be billionaires if inflation gets large enough doesn't mean its good, we'll still just have less buying power thus we would have less money than before. #3- No, if it was a loan our money supply would by 310 trillion dollars, but it is still, 9.3 trillion. #4- No, there are less recessions because of acts such as that, the time period while we had the Fed but no Glass Steagal act, 1914-1934, 20 years long, 8 of them were spent in depression {1}.
The Federal Reserve

Bank Monger, love that phrase, I'm going to start using it. Point #1- The constitution says congress should manage the money in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5. Point #2- The Federal Reserve robbed us of 98% of the dollars value since 1913. {1} Point #3- The Federal Reserve created 9 Trillion dollars out of thin air and gave it to person/persons unknown. {2} Point #4- The Federal Reserve caused the great depression. {1}. https://images.search.yahoo.com... {2}.
The Federal Reserve

#1- The constitution can be amended. #2- But didn't you hear Jimmy Carter? Wouldn't you like to drive around in a 61,00$ car, or smoke a 75$ cigar? Besides, we'll all be billionaires! That trumps government theavery and waste 100 times over. #3- Uh- well you see- never-mind, I can't come up with anything for that. #4- But that's the point, the Fed ruined the economy, and as a result, we passed those acts, so in the end it was a good thing the Fed ruined the economy.