BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God must exist if objective morality is actually true

Now that I realize it, it seems my rebuttal was out-of-context somewhat. Without any time constraints, I can go all out now. Allow me to clarify: God-"An intelligent, self aware supernatural entity who is omniscient." Through this, we can now start on equal terms. Your definition of god presupposes the answers in your favor. "Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God? [1] If morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God"s will. [2] If morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then God"s moral goodness is arbitrary." Don't know how you derive assertion #2. "Since moral goodness can't exist independent of the mind, moral facts must reside in the mind. Anything that is factually morally good must refer to an essentially true disposition and will. The only possible candidate for this is the mind of God. This also means that moral goodness is not arbitrary since an essential truth." Sentence one is wrong. The mind is the device that reinforces morals. For example, if I think murder is bad, my mind keeps my body from murdering. Sentence two is partially wrong depending how you look at it; not sure what you mean by "true". True as in objectively good or as in exists? Third sentence -- presupposes scenario two. Onto sentence four, I see the word "arbitrary". Very ambiguous. Arbitrary in regards to what? "We know God's nature by having the knowledge of his disposition and will in what we consider to be "morally good." We know also know God's anti-nature by having knowledge of "moral wrongs" which disconform to his essential standard of goodness - or in other words - his dispoition and will. We know that this standard is essential because none of the below have changed:" So here, you implying scenario two -- that moral goodness is implied by God's nature. A definition like this is redundant -- it accomplishes nothing. You're implying that we can derive God's will and disposition from what we consider morally good. I wouldn't necessarily say you straw manned my claim -- more like you just gave a dis-honest rebuttal. And while God's "will and disposition" is very much similar to what we subjectively perceive as "morally good" -- who says it's because of God? Is there any proof it's because of God that we think this? Have fun trying to rebut this. Sorry for the sudden definition change since I overlooked the definition of God before.
God must exist if objective morality is actually true

At this time I'll respond to my opponent's questions from last round. It's important to note that my contention is "God must exist if objective morality is actually true." God is defined as the supreme moral authority and arbiter of humanity. I'll demonstrate how God could be the objective basis for moral statements.My opponent's rebuttal focused on two main problems: (1.) God's will is subjective and therefore can't be the basis for moral facts and (2.) There's no coherent way to determine God's nature. He concluded that even if God existed, morality couldn't be objective.The Euthyphro DilemmaAre morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?[1] If morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will.[2] If morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then God’s moral goodness is arbitrary.If moral facts do exist, the answer must be neither. I will argue that this is a false dichotomy and that moral facts can be grounded by God if God's nature is essentially true."Moral goodness" always references the disposition or will of the mind. I invite you to think of a counter-example. You won't.Since moral goodness can't exist independent of the mind, moral facts must reside in the mind. Anything that is factually morally good must refer to an essentially true disposition and will. The only possible candidate for this is the mind of God. This also means that moral goodness is not arbitrary since an essential truth.We know God's nature by having the knowledge of his disposition and will in what we consider to be "morally good." We know also know God's anti-nature by having knowledge of "moral wrongs" which disconform to his essential standard of goodness - or in other words - his dispoition and will. We know that this standard is essential because none of the below have changed:"Being compassionate is morally good""Being honest is morally good""Being humble, patient, and diligent is a virtue"The inverse has also never changed:"Being cruel is morally wrong""Being dishonest is morally wrong""Being boastful, impatient, and lazy are character flaws"So, I'll wrap up my rebuttal by saying that God can be the basis for moral facts is he posseses an essentially true disposition and will. This should also highlight the point that we can't have facts regarding moral goodness if we don't have a disposition or will that that goodness is referring to. The only possible candidate that can be the essentially true source for moral facts is God. In my first round I also explained why, if God doesn't exist, morality can't be objective. My opponent doesn't take any issue with that argument though.
God must exist if objective morality is actually true

Sorry for not reading your original argument on this debate since I was quite busy with schoolwork but at the same time wanted to argue on this topic. Now that I have time, I'd like to question if God is the "supreme moral authority", then what would his set standards for objective morality be? You're right that you can't have objective morality without a god. The thing is, you can't have objective morality with a god. Favoring "God's opinion" is equally as subjective as a human opinion. Also, this brings up another point, how do we determine God's nature? You defined morality with regards to goodness. The typical response here is that God's charm is good. But then again, this raises another dire question that I mentioned above, what is this objective standard and where did it originate from? Therefore, this doesn't establish objective morality. " If humanity has inherent purpose, then moral statements can convey factual truths." Your definitions of moral is in accordance with goodness. Say God is bad. Then this means God's existence is not based on the existence of moral facts. The circular is logic clear here. You cannot have objective morality even with a God. Your "God" could define objective morality as cannibalism would be moral. Of course, this contradicts your entire claim. Even then, abiding to God's opinion on morality is still subjective. I await your cross-examination Pro. Cheers. Also bit in a hurry writing this, sorry if there are errors.
God must exist if objective morality is actually true

Thanks Con. This debate is over whether "God must exist if objective morality is actually true." I am affirming that statement. It has no impact on the resolution to deny moral objectivism and affirm moral subjectivism. The resolution uses IF/THEN LOGIC where the "IF" doesn't need to be proven true in order for the conditional to be true. You need to show the voters that God's existence is not contingent on the existence of moral facts. Here is is why God must exist if objective morality is actually true. Objective moral truths regarding what we should or shouldn't do can only be true if and only if humanity has inherent purpose. if God doesn't exist there is no possible means by which humanity could have inherent purpose. This means that there isn't actually anything that humans should or shouldnt do. Therefore, moral statements only reflect subjective rather than objective truths. On the other hand, if God, defined as a being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of humanity exists, then there is a means for humanity to have inherent purpose. If humanity has inherent purpose, then moral statements can convey factual truths. A moral statement, such as "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" can only be factually true if there exist facts regarding what humans should or shouldnt do. There cannot be facts regarding what humans should or shouldn't do unless humanity has inherent purpose. The only way humanity can have inherent purpose is if an arbiter of humanity exists. Accordingly, the only way that moral facts are actually true is if the arbiter of humanity is also a being of supreme moral authority.
God must exist if objective morality is actually true

Let's start with this. Is morality subjective or objective? Nothing can be proven empirically, but for the sake of this argument, I take the stand that morality is subjective. An objective thing is something with physical evidence. For example, if I jump off a cliff, I die. But morality cannot be observed in nature. It's a man-made construct. And it's relative to what we say, the same way musical taste is relative to what we say. If everyone said killing was moral, then it would be. There's nothing in nature that trumps what we think about morality. Morality cannot be observed in the physical universe. It doesn't have physical ramifications. Morality only has physical ramifications because we choose to enforce it. Therefore, morality is not objective but subjective for the reasons above.
God must exist if objective morality is actually true

Definitions: Objective morality "The view that there are moral statements which are factually true. " God: "Being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of humanity. " Morality "principles concerning the distinction between what is morally right and morally wrong. " Morally right "the disposition or will that someone should have, and one that is in accordance with goodness" Morally wrong "the disposition or will that someone shouldn't have, and one that is in disaccordance with goodness. "
NT worship.

My opponent states that I have argued that we are obligated to keep the Old Testament Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments. However, I have not argued that. No where have I argued that Christians are obligated to observe the 10 commandments, the 613 Laws of the Pentateuch, nor the added Laws to which Jesus and Paul are responding to in the NT. What I have argued is that the Law is what condemns us. The Law is what makes it necessary for us to have a savior. It was by keeping the Law that Christ was able to purchase our salvation, to serve as our penal substitute, and to make satisfaction to God. If not for the Law, Christ's sacrifice would not have been necessary. Must we keep the Law in order to be saved? No... we now obey the Law (as much as we can) out of gratitude to our Savior, out of love for the Law Giver, and out of obedience to the faith we profess. However, that does not mean that the Law does not impact us... that does not mean that the Law is non-existent, nor that it doesn't not stand to condemn us apart from the work of Jesus. Rather, we stand justified BY the Law, as Christ was justified by his keeping of the Law and his justification is imputed to us.
NT worship.

It is always nice to engage a fellow Brother in Christ in discourse, since as Proverbs 27:17 says, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. " I would like to summarize my opponent's argument. For clarity sake, I shall preserve the numbering that my opponent utilizes. 1) Jesus died for our sins, to make propitiation for our sin. 2) Christ's law was initiated upon his death and resurrection, and he has replaced the OT law with his law. 3) The sacrificial system in the OT is insufficient, and Christ's blood serves as the saving sacrifice. 4) God has initiated a new Covenant with Israel and the Church. Therefore, the old Law (covenant) is null and void at the advent of Christ and his sacrifice. While this argument is quite logical, it is a mischaracterization of the Gospel. Consider the following. Galatians 3:15 - To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. The argument Paul continues to argue is that the covenant made with Abraham is still in order. The promise that we will be justified by faith, is still in order. Paul later argues that the Law did not replace this promise. He writes: "This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. " So what is the purpose of the Law, one must ask. Paul explains in another passage: "For by works of the law no human being1 will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. " (Romans 3:20) Paul is arguing that the original purpose of the Law, when it was ADDED to the Covenant with Abraham, is to make us aware of sin. It acts as a measuring stick, to which none of us compare. It is in this context which Paul says "For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God" (Romans 3:23). It was to THIS concept that we were taken captive under the law. We are captive to the fact that we do not measure up. However, when Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, we are no longer captive to that inadequacy. Not because we are not bound by the regulations of the Law. .. rather, through Christ we may fulfill our part of the Law. Let me post this question to my opponent. .. We are condemned because of sin, this is established by your quotation of Romans 3:23. Christ saves us from the law. .. by fulfilling the law. If the law is no longer valid or required. .. then why does Christ need to die in order to fulfill the requirements of the law? I submit to the voters that rather than this convoluted and confused understanding, we simply see that Christ has made a way for us to fulfill the law. Through both his passive and active obedience, imputed to us, he has fulfilled the law. So to say that the early Church or any Church denied the law, is to deny the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice, which was to fulfill the law. .. not to abolish it. Thank you for reading, I look forward to the next round. Until Christ came. We see the culmination of this argument later in the passage.
NT worship.

I would also like to establish some parameters for this debate. For the sake of this debate Pro has the burden of proof. As such, in order to secure victory in this debate Pro must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the New Testament (27 books recognized by all orthodox Christian branches) does not follw the Old Testament Law (66 books recognized by all orthodox Christian branches). Since Pro has the burden of proof, I will allow him to open the argument in round 2. In my half of round 2 I will present my rebuttal to his argument as well as any affirmative argument that I see necessary. In round 3 Pro will have a chance to defend his argument, further or redirect his argument, or rebuttal any affirmative argument I put forward. In my half of round 3 I shall rebuttal his arguments and defend any affirmative arguments I have put forward. I will refrain from furthering my arguments beyond defense or redirecting, since Pro will not have a chance to respond prior to vote. I look forward to the opening of Pro's argument.
Immigration Ought To Be Recognized As A Human Right

I'll address the attacks made against my case and then address yours. Starting with the Snowden claim, 1. I never said the right to privacy was guaranteed by the 4th Amendment. Rather, I explained the what the amendment states in regards to search and seizure. Being as the NSA was collecting this data without a warrant, that is most definitely a violation of the Constitution. 2. This argument was also conceded. Vote Pro 3. The data collection is also highly unreliable, which I will address later. 4. Again, Snowden did not IMMIGRATE to Russia, he was granted asylum. These are totally different things, and are not synonymous. Now, in regards to Rawls, 1. Cyber security has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not immigration should be a human right. Essentially, this is a red herring and is distracting from the real issues. The issues are that ARE digging tunnels under the borders or swimming across seas, and risking their lives to enter countries that would turn them away in any traditional sense. This is exactly why immigration needs to be recognized as a human right: since it would minimize these harms. This provides for equality of opportunity as well as liberty. Syrians are drowning in attempts to enter Europe. Clearly Bashar al Assad is not advocating for liberty, and as the democratic forefront of the world, the west needs to do so. And infrastructure/wages, 1. Infrastructure is under pressure regardless of immigration. Using your example of China, we can see this. China has very little immigration, yet we still see these pressures. 2. I've already demonstrated that wages are actually better off with immigrants in round one. Immigrants are willing to do jobs that native citizens are not willing to do, so as a result we see economic benefit. In spite of all of these claims, there is still a fundamental flaw with all of your arguments, namely in usage of 'ought'. As stated in the observation that was never addressed, we are not debating the practicality of immigration, rather the ethics and morality of it. Therefore, unless you can cite some moral theory that is contingent upon economics that outweighs the Rawlsian notions of duty, the pro has won this debate.
Immigration Ought To Be Recognized As A Human Right

First I'll address the arguments brought against my case, then I will refer to my opponent's. 1. Let's start with the Edward Snowden example. This is a unique situation since it could be said that Snowden was actually justified in his behaviors. The United States government was mandating massive surveillance programs that have resulted in the detainment of hundreds of innocent people as well as racial profiling. To add further insult to injury, the government did this in violation of the 4th Amendment, or protections from unreasonable search or seizure. Snowden exposed this injustice, which did not necessarily cause harm to anyone. Had he released launch codes it would be different. The point here is that his actions were justified, and he shouldn't have to run from America for exposing it's injustice. This is further confirmation that immigration should be a right b) Snowden is also not an immigrant, he is an asylee. The argument is not topical. 2/3. Your argument's also do not take into account Rawls' theory of justice. Rawls stated that "liberty may restricted for the sake of liberty" meaning that because immigration is a human right does not mean it is unconditional. We forfeit rights every day in order to contribute to the liberty of others, immigration would be no different. So in essence, the threats of terror and loss of security may exist, but they harms are greatly reduced due to the conception of Rawls' justice. 4. Economic loss is also a fear mongering statement. The most recent academic research suggests that, on average, immigrants raise the overall standard of living of American workers by boosting wages and lowering prices. One reason is that immigrants and U.S.-born workers generally do not compete for the same jobs; instead many immigrants complement the work of U.S. employees and increase their productivity. (Greenstone, Michael, and Adam Looney. "The Hamilton Project: Ten Economic Facts About Immigration." Brookings (20101): 1-16. Web. 5 May 2016. <http://www.brookings.edu... greenstone looney/09_immigration.pdf>.) Since the consequences are minimal and immigration benefits not only the immigrant but native citizens, immigration should be recognized as a right.
If Hillary wins the election it will be because she is a woman.

I am sure that people will vote based on the merits of your argument vs mine. You brought up Women for Hillary. What about Women for Obama? http://women.barackobama.com... Or Women for Edwards? http://johnedwards.com... Or Women for Bill Richardson http://women.richardsonforpresident.com... Or Women for Romney http://www.womenforromney.org... Or Women for Rudy Giuliani http://www.joinrudy2008.com... Or Women for McCain http://www.johnmccain.com... Or, do I need to continue? As you can see female voters are just as likely to vote for someone besides Hillary Clinton.
If Hillary wins the election it will be because she is a woman.

Hello, First of all I want to compliment you on how you have set up this debate. I expect this to be rather structured which is always a treat. I suppose that I will be arguing that if Hillary Clinton wins the U.S. Presidential Election (and this is assuming that she becomes the democratic nominee) it is not simply because she is a woman. Perhaps she will get votes from many women but I believe that her campaigns momentum has more to do with an overwhelming amount of attention in the media as well as name recognition. The die has been cast and the ball is in your court my friend ;)
If Hillary wins the election it will be because she is a woman.

I made this four rounds so both sides have a chance to give a very brief intro to what they're going to be saying during the debate. My side. I'm going to be showing how if Hillary wins, it would be because she's a woman. It is sad that American woman are doing this. I understand feminism, but I only beleive people should stand up for their rights if their rights are being violated. I know there are some cases where women make less money, but Hillary can't fix that. She is using the feminism part of woman brains to get them to vote for her.
Euthanasia shouldn't be carried out by medical workers

Medical workers are not licensed to harm or murder anyone as it says on their Hippocratic Oath. They also have certain code of ethic and moral principles that also prohibits them harming others. Additionally, other people have certain sense of guilt about murdering, and they medical workers cannot be expected to do that. Alternatively, non medical stuff (such as execution squad, police etc) should be instructed to euthanise by medical staff.
Euthanasia shouldn't be carried out by medical workers

I agologize that my link was broken, this one should work.http://www.pbs.org...;My opponet has given the original Hippocratic Oath as evidence for his claims. This shouldn't be taken into account for one simple reason, it has been rewritten many times over the years. So why would we use an out dated oath. In fact only 14 percent of modern oaths prohibit euthanasia, 11 percent hold convenant with a deity, 8 percent foreswear abortion, and a mere 3 percent forbid sexual contact with patients—all maxims held sacred in the classical version. The original calls for free tuition for medical students and for doctors never to "use the knife" (that is, conduct surgical procedures)—both obviously out of step with modern-day practice. Perhaps most telling, while the classical oath calls for "the opposite" of pleasure and fame for those who transgress the oath, fewer than half of oaths taken today insist the taker be held accountable for keeping the pledge.